Preamble

The House met at Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — FRANCE (BRITISH VISITORS).

Captain FAIRFAX: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been drawn to instances of insults and violence having been offered to peaceable British travellers in France; and, if so, whether he has made, or will make, any representations on the subject to the Government of the French Republic?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain): I have seen in the Press an account of one such incident, but I have not yet received the Report for which I called from the British Consular Officer concerned. I am confident that we can rely on the French authorities to take whatever steps are necessary for the protection of British subjects visiting France.

Captain FAIRFAX: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he saw in the account of this incident that an English lady was injured by a brick being thrown, and the French authorities do not appear to have taken any steps in the matter?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I can make no statement on the facts until I receive the Report from the Consular Officer which I have called for. I think there is some reason to think that the accounts in the Press are very much exaggerated.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not a fact that, in view of the large number of foreign visitors of all nationalities to France, these incidents are very few and mostly have been greatly exaggerated?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I think so. I am sure they are deplored by no one
more than the French people and the French authorities.

Oral Answers to Questions — KING OF THE HEJAZ (BRITISH REPRESENTATIVE).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will consider the appointment of British representatives to the Court of Ibn Saud, Sultan of Nejd, with a representative particularly at Mecca, in view of the large number of British subjects who make the pilgrimage to the holy places?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: As at present advised, I am satisfied that the existing arrangements for conducting relations with the King of the Hejaz, Sultan of Nejd, through the British Agent and Consul at Jeddah are adequate.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY.: Does the Foreign Secretary not think it is advisable in British interests to have a properly accredited representative at the court of the greatest prince of Arabia?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I think that at present our existing arrangements are adequate, and that I ought not to make any change.

Oral Answers to Questions — S.S. "EDITH CAVELL."

Colonel DAY: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is in a position to state the result of the renewed representations to the French authorities regarding the imprisonment of the officers and crew of the steamer "Edith Cavell," wrecked off French Guiana on 30th November last?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): No answer has yet been received from the French Government. His Majesty's Ambassador at Paris is, therefore, being instructed to make further representations.

Colonel DAY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that through the privations caused to these men and their semi-starvation after being cast into prison, they met their death?

Mr. SAMUEL: I am fully aware of the facts. This matter was raised by the
hon. Member for Frome (Mr. G. Peto) many months ago, and we have had it in hand ever since.

Colonel DAY: Does the hon. Gentleman not think that some satisfaction should be given if the matter has been in hand all that time?

Mr. SAMUEL: The matter is in the hands of the French Government, and we can do no more. His Majesty's Ambassador has gone to very great trouble in raising the matter with the French Government to see what can be done.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONSTANTINOPLE (GALATA BRIDGE TOLLS).

Sir FREDRIC WISE: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the amount the municipality of Constantinople has handed over from the Galata Bridge tolls, which forms the security for the Constantinople Loan of 1909?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The municipality of Constantinople ceased to hand over the Galata Bridge tolls on the 17th June last. I am unaware of the exact amount paid over prior to that date.

Sir F. WISE: Has that amount, whatever it is, been deposited in London?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I could not say without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL WAR GRAVES, NORWAY.

Viscount SANDON: 8.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether an early opportunity will be taken for British naval War graves in Norway to be officially visited by suitable representatives of the Fleet; whether the Imperial War Graves Commission are responsible for their maintenance; and, if not, what provision is made for this purpose?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Davidson): The Imperial War Graves Commission are responsible for the maintenance of these graves. It is hoped at an early date to send one of His Majesty's ships to Norwegian waters. The opportunity of visiting these naval War graves will then be taken.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, SPALDING (WOMEN TYPISTS).

Mr. J. H. HUDSON: 16.
asked the Minister of Labour how many women typists were registered as unemployed at the Employment Exchange for Spalding, Lincolnshire, on 15th June and on 15th July, 1926?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: At 21st June, 1926, and 26th July, the nearest dates for which returns are available, there were no women on the register of the Employment Exchange at. Spalding registered for work as typists.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE UNIONS.

Colonel WOODCOCK: 10.
asked the Minister of Labour why the form of Return A.R..21 and A.R. 21 (a) required to be sent by registered trade unions to the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies provides for unemployment (State and voluntary), travelling, and emigration pay being shown as one item; and if he will arrange that in future State and voluntary unemployment benefit shall be shown separately in order that there may be no ambiguity as to what comes out of the trade unions' own funds?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): These items of expenditure (which all relate generally to payments to unemployed members) are included under one head, for the purpose of keeping the form as simple as possible. The annual returns are so arranged that the gross expenditure on unemployment and subsidiary benefits is shown as expenditure, and the amount of unemployment benefit chargeable to the State is shown as a separate item of income.

Mr. B. PETO: 14.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the Registrar-General of Friendly Societies regulates or restricts the investment of trades union funds and, in particular, whether he prevents the investment of trades union funds in the ordinary stock of industrial companies in which their members are employed; and whether the rules of any trades unions are framed to give them power to invest their funds in this manner?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The law only requires that, as regards registered unions, the rules should contain "a provision for the investment of the funds." The investment rule is frequently framed in terms wide enough to include such stock as is mentioned in the question.

Mr. PETO: Do I understand that there is no legal or other difficulties placed in the way of trade unions investing money in the manner indicated in the question?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Not necessarily so, if their rules permit.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 15.
asked the Minister of Labour if he can quote

LIST (a).


Register No.
—
Funds at 31st September, 1825.


Benefit Funds.
Management Fund.
Dispute Fund.
Other Funds not Separated.


T.

£
s
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


26
Durham County Colliery Enginemen's Boiler Minders and Firemen's Mutual Aid Association.
12,740
15
3
—
—
3,153
4
6













(deficiency)


106
South Staffordshire and East Worcestershire Amalgamated Association of Miners.
486
10
9
—
—
1,227
19
8


229
Cumberland Miners' Association.
92
13
0
—
—
5,797
5
10


301
Yorkshire Colliery Enginemen, Firemen and Allied Trades' Association.
5,101
4
10
55
9
4¼
—
2,643
12
11¾


401
Northumberland Colliery Mechanics' Mutual Protection Association.
1,826
7
10
—
—
768
4
1½


1192
Northumberland Colliery Enginemen and Firemen's Mutual Protection Association.
1,714
12
4
—
—
765
4
11


1531
Staffordshire Underground Colliery Firemen's Shotlighters and Overmen's Association.
454
12
6
—
—
3,477
16
0


1681
Yorkshire Winding Enginemen's Association.
887
16
2
—
—
1,703
5
10½


1702
Midland Mining Officials' Association.
436
11
9
—
—
222
1
2


1837
South Wales and Monmouthshire Colliery Enginemen, Boilermen and Craftsmen's 
Association.
*537
14
7
—
164
13
9½
*342
0
10½


*1924 Figures.

any branches of the miners' trade unions which have separated their benefit, working, strike or political funds; and if he will give the amount in each case!

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As the answer consists of tables of figures, perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will allow me to circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
The annual returns furnished by trade unions in the mining industry registered in England and Wales show that the unions in list (a) below had separate benefit, working or strike funds at 31st December, 1925. List (b) gives those unions which had political funds.

Following are the tables:

LIST (b).


Register No.
—
Amount of Political Fund at 31st December, 1925.


T

£
s.
d.


43†
Durham Miners' Association
31,770
15
9


187
North Wales Quarrymen's Union
—


734
Cumberland Iron Ore Miners and Kindred Trades' Association
67
9
7


809†
North Wales Miners' Association
1,068
11
2


814
Cumberiand Colliery Enginemen, Boilermen and Electrical Workers.
26
9
6


1208
Lancashire, Cheshire and North Wales Colliery Enginemen's, Boilermen's and Brakesmen's Federation.
325
19
4


1271
North Western Counties Quarrymen's Association
15
6
2


1466
Lancashire and Cheshire Colliery Deputies' Association
298
17
8


1647†
Kent Mine Workers' Association
42
15
4


1780
Mining. Clerical and Administrative Workers' Guild
*2
3
10


* At 31st December, 1924.


† These unions are also component unions for political purposes of the Miners' Federation of Great Britain, and as such the political funds include the amount held on behalf of the Federation.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Can the Minister say, in view of the statements that have appeared as to there being great distress and starvation in the mining districts, how far the working expenses have been curtailed, and how far the miners' leaders' salaries are being employed in the relief of such distress?

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that that arises here.

Mr. BATEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is not a single miners' leader who is receiving any salary during this dispute?

Mr. SPEAKER: Again, that does not arise.

Colonel WOODCOCK: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour whether he will give a return showing for 1924 and 1925 in respect of each registered trade union possessing 10,000 members or more, information under the same heading as in the table of details of income, expenditure, etc., of trade unions in the Report on Trade Unions for 1906–1910, Cd. 6109–1912, and distinguishing salaries and allowances of officers, expenses of executive committee, and other working expenses?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will arrange for this to be done, but I am not quite certain about the possibility of
distinguishing the expenses of executive committees and other working expenses.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS - MORGAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman have a return made of the directors of the five great banks of the country?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Perhaps that question should be addressed to the President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Having regard to the well-known scandals in connection with public companies, will the Government consider legislation to make the same requirement with regard to all public companies?

Mr. R. YOUNG: In issuing any such return, will the right hon. Gentleman state the number of branches in connection with each trade union, as that has a material effect on expenses?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will go into that, and see if it can be done. I should add that when I received this question, I looked into it and found that it was merely a repetition of returns already made before the War.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROAD REPAIRS, SOUTHWARK (GRANT).

Colonel DAY: 17.
asked the Minister of Labour the reason for the refusal to make
a monetary grant for the purpose of undertaking proposed road repairs in the Borough of Southwark during the forthcoming winter months?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon): I have been asked to answer this question. I am unable to identify the works to which the hon. and gallant Member refers, but if he will furnish me with further particulars, I will cause inquiries to be made?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE (DISABILITY PENSION, F. S. SMITH).

Mr. A. R. KENNEDY: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. F. S. Smith, ex-leading air-craftsman, No. 159,945, Royal Air Force, and to the fact that this young man has been discharged from the Air Force suffering from acute tuberculosis after several years' service, including service in the East, and has been refused disability pension, though he had no previous tubercular history, and his medical advisers are of opinion that the disease is directly attributable to his service; and whether he will appoint an appeal tribunal which will ensure a fair consideration of the testimony on both sides in this and similar cases, or will take other steps to remove the sense of injustice caused by an adverse decision arrived at in the absence of medical testimony offered by the applicant?

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Samuel Hoare): As the answer is rather long, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

As regards the first part of the question, I am advised that the Royal Air Force medical authorities were unable to discover any specific incident of this airman's service in the Royal Air Force which could be regarded as a factor either in the production or in the aggravation of the tuberculosis for which he was invalided. The incidence of this disease amongst Royal Air Force personnel at home and abroad is practically the same, and compares favourably with the incidence
amongst the civil population of England. There is no evidence to show that general service conditions in Iraq, Egypt, Palestine or India, are provocative of the onset of tuberculosis. The fact that the disease manifested itself after the airman's entry into the Service does not prove that Service conditions played any part in producing it.

As regards the second part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth (Sir B. Falk) by my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty on the 18th May last.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION (EMPIRE CO-OPERATION).

Mr. RAMSDEN: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for Air how far the various Governments of the Empire have, since the Imperial Economic Conference reported on the question in 1923, cooperated in the dissemination of information regarding experiments and new schemes for the development of civil aeronautics; and what have been the practical results of Empire co-operation?

Sir S. HOARE: A system is in force for the regular interchange of information between India, the Dominions and the Colonies and Great Britain, by means of "liaison letters" relating to developments in civil aviation, both technical and general, and of the mutual exchange of periodical and recurrent publications. The results obtained have been of considerable value, and should prove to be still more important in the future. My hon. Friend will find a good deal of information in regard to Imperial air development in the Annual Report on the Progress of Civil Aviation recently presented to Parliament (Cmd. 2707).

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL PARKS (CATERPILLARS).

Colonel DAY: 23.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, what action has been taken by his Department with regard to the plague of caterpillars damaging the trees in the Royal parks?

Captain HACKING (for The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS): During the winter, as far as the funds available permit, cocoons are destroyed. In the spring, such trees as show signs of being attacked, and are accessible, are sprayed Every medium-sized tree in the Green Park and St. James' Park was so sprayed this spring. Four thousand gallons of mixture have been used this year in the central parks.

Colonel DAY: In view of the very great annoyance that is caused, can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether a greater effort will be made next winter to destroy these caterpillars?

Captain HACKING: Experiments are now being carried out.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is not this a very great argument against the destruction of pigeons in London?

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

BUILDINGS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 24.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether it is proposed to build a new block of Government offices on the south side of Whitehall between Montague House and Richmond Terrace; whether the plans, etc., have been approved; for what purpose these new offices are required; when it is proposed to commence work upon them; and whether the sanction of Parliament will be sought before the work is begun?

Captain HACKING: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The other parts of the question do not, therefore, arise. I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that no work of such a magnitude would be commenced without the House having an opportunity of discussing it.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May we take it, from the hon. and gallant Gentleman's answer, that the proposal to move the Air Ministry from A dastral House has been abandoned?

Captain HACKING: It is a pure fable—the whole thing.

WRITING ASSISTANTS (PROMOTION).

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 49.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury wrether he can explain the reason for the small proportion of promotion given to writing assistants and shorthand typists in the offices of inspectors of taxes, having regard to the number of the girls concerned who have already proved their fitness in the performance of tax clerk duties either prior to or since their establishment?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): Machinery exists in the Inland Revenue for reviewing from time to time the claims of women with experience of the kind to which the hon. Member refers for promotion to the rank of tax clerk, and the number of promotions is not inconsiderable. Where previous experience has included specially meritorious work, that fact has been taken into account.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

MANIPULATIVE GRADES (WAGES).

Mr. AMMON: 25.
asked the Postmaster-General the number of sorters, telegraphists, counter clerks and telegraphists, sorting clerks and telegraphists, and wireless operators, respectively, in receipt of a basic pay of£3 per week or over?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Viscount Wolmer): The numbers are as follows: sorters 4,590, telegraphists 1,170, counter clerks and telegraphists 430, sorting clerks and telegraphists 4,110, and wireless operators, 10.

Mr. AMMON: 26.
asked the Postmaster-General the number of manipulative officers in receipt of basic pay of less than £3 per week and the number in receipt of £3 basic and over per week'?

Viscount WOLMER: Approximately 129,600 members of the manipulative grades are in receipt of basic pay of less than £3 a week, and 10,400 are in receipt of basic pay of £3a week or more. The former figure includes approximately 24,000 part-time officers. I might add that basic pay of £3 a week produces, with current bonus, remuneration of 97s. 3d. a week, or over £250 a year. Scale payment sub-postmasters have been excluded from these figures.

BROADCASTING.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 27.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is prepared to authorise the immediate release of a sum of £6,000 out of the unexpended balance of broadcasting revenue retained by the Post Office, so that the British Broadcasting Company may be enabled to experiment in radio physical culture and morning programmes generally until the end of the year?

Viscount WOLMER: The answer is in the negative.

Colonel DAY: Is the Noble Lord aware that this has been tried with very great success in America, and might benefit the health of the nation here?

Viscount WOLMER: The Broadcasting Company have full power to carry out any programme they like within the financial limits that the Postmaster-General has imposed.

Mr. ROBERT YOUNG: 28.
asked the Postmaster-General why the British Broadcasting Company, on Friday evening last, 30th July, broadcast an attack on prohibition in America when permission was, last summer, refused to broadcast a speech on temperance delivered by an hon. Member at an important international conference at Edinburgh?

Viscount WOLMER: The broadcast in question was not submitted by the British Broadcasting Company to the Postmaster-General, since the reference to prohibition was regarded by the company as only incidental to the general presentation of views by a distinguished American.

POSTMARK ADVERTISEMENT.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 30.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the movement to attract more visitors to this country from abroad, he will consider using as an obliterating stamp mark on letters going to suitable foreign countries the words, "Come to Britain"?

Viscount WOLMER: The process of stamp-cancellation is necessarily performed before letters are sorted according to their destinations, and this fact in itself renders impracticable the suggestion of my hon. Friend. Moreover,
in pursuance of Section 17 of the Economy Act, 1926, my right hon. Friend has invited tenders and placed a contract for the exclusive right to obtain orders for paid advertisements in the dies of stamp-cancellation machines.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Arising out of the Noble Lord's answer, which I did not hear very well owing to, the disturbance above the Gangway, may I ask what sums have been brought in by the contract which was let for that purpose?

Viscount WOLMER: I think I must have notice of that question.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Seeing that we have the most attractive country in the world, and the finest roads, could not some reference be made to that?

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL TRADE DISPUTE.

SUBVENTION (PAYMENTS TO 0WNERS).

Sir F. WISE: 31.
asked the Secretary for Mines the amount of subvention paid to the coalowners for each county in Great Britain?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane Fox): I regret that figures for separate counties are not available, and would be laborious to obtain. I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT an estimate of the total subvention in each of the colliery districts.

following are the figures:

£


Scotland
3,650,000


 Northumberland
1,656,000


Durham
4,163,000


 South Wales and Monmouth-
shire
6,466,000


Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, Leicestershire,
Cannock Chase and War-wickshire
3,811,000


Lancashire, North Stafford-
shire and Cheshire
2,314,000


North Wales
418,000


South Staffordshire and Salop
227,000


Cumberland
389,000


Bristol
35,000


Forest of Dean
143,000


Somerset
33,000


Kent
45,000



£23,350,000

IMPORTED COAL.

Sir F. WISE: 46.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much of the Supplementary Estimate of £3,000,000 has been used for the purchase and importation of coal?

Colonel LANE FOX: I have been asked to reply. I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate the undesirability at this stage of giving details of these operations?

RELIEF.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 48.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what money has been spent out of public funds on relief of the poor, relief of unemployment, and school-feeding during the past financial year and during the present coal stoppage, respectively; and what proportion of this expenditure is attributable to mining areas?

Mr. RONALD McNEILL: The total cost of domiciliary relief for the year 1925–26 was £15,326,700, while the corresponding figure for the eight weeks to 26th June last was £4,025,000. £2,4100,700, or 15.7 per cent. of the former amount, and £1,352,000, or 33.6 per cent. of the latter amount, was incurred in 31 Poor Law unions specially affected by the coal dispute, though the dispute has affected other areas in less degree. It is estimated that during the 12 weeks ended 24th July the cost of feeding school children in the mining areas was about £225,000, or about 25 per cent. in excess of the expenditure on this service for the whole country during the whole year ended 31st March, 1926. As regards other expenditure on relief of unemployment, I find that an allocation between mining areas and the rest of the country could only be made to a limited extent and would take some time to work out.

COAL PRODUCTION.

Mr. PARKINSON: 32.
asked the Secretary for Mines the amount of coal produced in Great Britain during April, 1926?

Colonel LANE FOX: The output of coal in Great Britain during April, 1926, was 21,577,000 tons.

HOUSING SUBSIDIES.

Sir JOSEPH NALL: 34.
asked the Minister of Health if he can make any further statement regarding future policy as to the housing subsidies?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): It is the general policy of the Government to bring to an end the subsidies under the Acts of 1923 and 1924 as soon as practicable, but it is resognised that this can only be done gradually and with sufficient notice to enable local authorities and those engaged in the building industry to accommodate themselves to the position, in order to avoid breaking the continuity of house production. The statutory review under the Act of 1924 falls to be made after the 1st October next, and I cannot at the present time say what reduction of subsidies, if any, may be made by Order under that Act. Any such Order, however, must be confirmed by Resolution of this House before becoming operative. In the meantime, I have decided that houses completed by the 1st October, 1927, will be eligible for the present rate of subsidy.

Sir J. NALL: May I ask what advice my right hon. Friend proposes to give to authorities who are now considering upon what basis they should build houses after the 1st October?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the statement I have just made will show what the position is.

Sir J. NALL: Are we to understand that schemes for houses beginning after October should be on the basis of no subsidy?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. I think my hon. Friend has not quite understood the answer, and that when he sees it in print he will get a better idea of it. It deals with houses completed—not houses begun—in October, 1927, not October, 1926.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Does that mean that contracts already let with the approval of the Ministry, say in the case of a town council, will be eligible for the subsidy at the present rate?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is what I said. It deals with houses completed—

Captain BENN: Yes.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is what I meant.

Sir J. NALL: May I ask, in order to clear up the misunderstanding which I think has been created, whether the proposal is that the subsidy will now apply till October, 1927?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: To houses completed by 1st October, 1927.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Are we to understand that the Minister thinks the shortage of houses is really seriously overtaken now?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.

Mr. MACINTYRE: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is now able to make any statement as to the possible revision of the housing subsidies for Scotland under the Act of 1924?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): Yes, Sir. The general policy of the Government with regard to Scotland is similar to that announced by my right hon. Friend in the case of England. The Government has, however, decided that, in view of the present exceptional position in Scotland, all houses completed before 1st October, 1928, shall rank for the existing subsidy.

PRISONS (NURSES).

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 39.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what number of women nurses are employed in His Majesty's prisons for women; what training and what certificates of efficiency such nurses hold; and what proportion they bear to the daily average of women prisoners?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Captain Douglas Hacking): In women's prisons 23 registered nurses and 18 hospital officers are employed. The registered nurses hold such certificates of training as are required by the General Nursing Council for registration. The hospital officers were trained in the larger prison women's hospitals and passed as efficient by the medical officers. The proportion of the 41 to the daily average female population for 1924–25 is about 1 to 23.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 40.
asked the Home Secretary what number of trained male nurses are employed in His Majesty's prisons; what training and what certificates of efficiency such male nurses hold; what is their proportion to the daily average number of prisoners; whether any trained women nurses are employed in His Majesty's prisons for ment; and, if so, how many women nurses are so employed and what is their proportion to the daily average number of male prisoners?

Captain HACKING: Certified efficient by a board of medical officers after training at Parkhurst, 131 male hospital officers are employed in prisons. Their proportion to the daily average number of prisoners for 1924–5 is about one to 75. Forty-seven of them are on the State Register of Nurses. In prisons for men, women nurses are only employed when the medical officer thinks that necessary in special cases.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Does that mean that there are no permanent women nurses, and that they are only brought in case of emergency?

Captain HACKING: Yes, that is what it means.

REGISTERED CLUBS.

Mr. CONNOLLY: 43.
asked the Home Secretary if he has considered the proposals submitted to him recently by a deputation representing the registered clubs; and, if so, what decision has been arrived at by the Cabinet?

Captain HACKING: My right hon. Friend stated the Government's decision in reply to a question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Fife on 25th March, and for the present there is nothing to add to that reply.

Mr. CONNOLLY: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the advisability of granting to clubs in certain areas the option of readjusting the present hours to meet the requirements of their members? Is he aware that the men on certain shifts are deprived of the opportunity of attending their clubs on account of their working hours, for recreation or refreshment?

Captain HACKING: If necessary, after the receipt of the Southborough Report, the Government will have a full inquiry, and all the points which have been raised by the various deputations will be considered.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman intend to put clubs in the same position as ordinary public houses, or to deal with them separately?

Captain HACKING: No decision can be reached until after the receipt of the Southborough Report.

GERMAN REPARATION (DAWES AGREEMENT).

Major HILLS: 47.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any proposal has been made to His Majesty's Government for a variation of the Dawes Agreement; what is the nature of such variation; and whether this House will be consulted before any change is made?

Mr. McNEILL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and, accordingly, the remainder of the question does not arise.

RUBBER (OUTPUT RESTRICTION).

Colonel WOODCOCK: 50.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he contemplates any changes in the near future respecting the arrangements for the releases of rubber under the Stevenson scheme?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): No, Sir; I have no statement to make at present.

BAHAMAS (DAMAGE BY STORM).

Viscount SANDON: 52.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give particulars of the damage by the recent storm to the Bahama Islands; what is the estimate of its cost; and whether any ships of His Majesty's Navy have been sent there to render assistance?

Mr. AMERY: The information received from the Governor states that the hurricane caused much damage to property,
especially in the out-islands. Local shipping has suffered heavily, it is feared with considerable loss of life. The Governor has promised to communicate further particulars as soon as they have been collected, but owing to the breakdown of inter-island communications some days must elapse before an accurate estimate of loss can be compiled. At my request the Admiralty have arranged for the despatch to the Bahamas of the sloop " Valerian " from the North America and West Indies station.

Commander BELLAIRS: Is it not the case that considerable assistance was rendered by the United States?

Mr. AMERY: I have no official information.

ADJOURNMENT (SUMMER).

AMENDMENT PROPOSED.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn until Tuesday, 9th November."—[Sir Austen Chamberlain.]

Mr. BATEY: I beg to move to leave out the words "9th November," and to insert instead thereof the words " 17th August."
Hon. Members opposite may laugh, but we are sincere. We are so sincere that we will carry this to a Division. The Amendment allows nine or ten days holiday, the same as Easter and Whitsuntide. We believe that is a long enough holiday at a time like this. With the whole of the mines of the country closed, we believe the House should not adjourn for a long holiday. We want to enter an emphatic protest against the House having a long Adjournment with things as they are. I could understand a long Adjournment last year and the year before, but the condition of industry to-day is worse than it was last year and far worse than when the Government took office two years ago. As a matter of fact, during the two years of this Government they have smashed the industrial machine, they have plunged the working classes into the deepest poverty, and the country is very rapidly going to the dogs. The coal mines of this country have been closed for 14 weeks, and the Government is now asking the House to adjourn for three months. It seems that the Government are prepared to allow the coal mines to be closed for another three
months. It does seem as if the Government in dealing with this question are absolutely blind. Recently, I was reading "The Kingdom of the Blind." In the kingdom of the blind a one-eyed man was king. It seems to me that the Government are blind, with a one-eyed man as king, in the person of the present Prime Minister. The Government are responsible for the present condition of the country and the present condition of the mining industry. They are responsible for the miners being locked out at the present time. We hope the Government are not wanting the situation to go on for another three months.
The situation is changing and will change during the next three weeks. The miners already have made a gesture towards peace. When the miners have finally decided to accept the Bishops' proposals, we want to know whether we shall be able to question the Prime Minister as to the action he proposes to take. This House ought to be meeting, so that we should be in a position to put questions to the Prime Minister as to whether he will take any step in order that a settlement may be arrived at in the coal industry. We ought not to adjourn for more than nine or 10 days, and at the end of that time we ought to be in a position to question the Prime Minister and to do everything which this House can do to bring about a peaceful settlement.

Mr. WHITELEY: I beg to second the Amendment.
Hon. Members opposite seem inclined to treat this proposal as a joke. We on this side regard it as a very serious matter. When the country is going through such a severe crisis, to adjourn the House for three months is not treating the general community with the sincerity with which it ought to be treated. If the stoppage, unfortunately, continues, the House will be called together at the end of August to deal with the Emergency Regulations. That is not sufficient. We ought to adjourn the House for a shorter time, in order that we may be able to deal with any eventualities that may arise and that 'may require discussion in this House. The Government themselves must feel that the, Motion which they are moving may be rather too rigid, and will not allow them the latitude that they may desire as days go by.
It is said that the miners have taken up a very stubborn sort of attitude. Their attitude is not half so stubborn as that of the coalowners. The coal-owners are supposed to be standing out in order to secure that this industry may be placed on a sure economic basis in the future; but they have never made a move. If it can be said that they have made a move, it has been in the direction of offering worse conditions than those which they offered when the dispute was likely to begin on the 1st May.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot go into the merits of the dispute on this Motion. That question can be raised subsequently.

Mr. WHITELEY: I am giving reasons why we should adjourn until the 17th August. The miners have been the first to make a substantial move in the direction of agreeing to a basis of negotiations that might bring the dispute to a more speedy termination. To allow 10 days' Recess is a sufficient time. One appreciates that hon. and right hon. Members have been passing through a very strenuous period, but I am sure that if hon. Members opposite cared to spend the 10 days' Recess which this Amendment seeks to allow in mining constituencies they would come back to this House with the determination to put into operation Emergency Powers Regulation 14, and would take control of the situation rather than allow the thing to go on. as it is to-day. The Government may find it essential to alter the date for the resumption of business. During a long vacation, the Minister of Health, with the great powers that he possesses, may so create a situation that it may be essential for us on this side to put questions to him regarding outdoor relief, or some similar subject. If the Government's Motion to adjourn until the 9th November were carried, it would prevent hon. Members on this side having an opportunity of securing a discussion or asking for information along the lines I have indicated. It is because we believe it is necessary, not only in the interests of the miners but in the interests of the general community, that the House ought to pass a Motion which is more elastic than the one moved by the Government that we urge the Government to agree to our reasonable Amendment, in the hope
that it may open avenues whereby a speedy settlement of the dispute may he arrived at.

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot believe that the hon. Members who moved and seconded the Amendment anticipated its acceptance by the Government. I rather suspect that had they thought it likely to be accepted by the Government, they might not have desired to move it.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: That is a very unparliamentary expression.

Mr. WHITELEY: We will agree to the acceptance.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The House has sat for its normal period. It has, in any case, to meet again in the Autumn. Even the Recess which we contemplate must be interrupted once, and a, second time if the stoppage in the coal trade continues. I cannot help thinking that in these circumstances it is not in the interests of the House and of Parliament itself that it should be called upon to remain in what is practically continuous Session. My memory goes back to at least one year in which the House sat in every month. No one who has had long experience of this House can believe that the work of the House is better done or as well done under these conditions as when we have a normal interlude of rest and refreshment for the mind and the body.

Mr. MONTAGUE: What about the miners?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I think it applies to the work of everyone, not even excluding Ministers. I would not plead these arguments, weighty as I think them to be, if I felt that the hon. Gentlemen who have moved and seconded the Amendment had made out, in the particular circumstances of the moment, a case in support of their Amendment. It is quite true, as the hon. Member has said, that when the House is not sitting Ministers cannot be daily questioned as to their actions. It is quite true that in those circumstances they may for a few weeks' or months' escape from a Vote of Censure or condemnation which the House might wish to pronounce upon them, but in that case it would pronounce
its condemnation upon them as soon as it met again. That is a circumstance which is present every year. The action of the Government has to go on whether the House is sitting or not, and it is carried on with the knowledge that. Ministers have to answer for what has happened during the months when the House is not sitting. It is not on general grounds that hon. Members opposite press
this Amendment. It is purely on the grounds of the stoppage in the coal trade, and that excludes from the arguments in support of the Amendment some of the considerations which have been pressed by hon. Members opposite a moment or two ago. The Amendment is now based solely on the stoppage in the coal trade. I have said that, if this stoppage continues, the House must in any case resume this month, and if it still continues it must resume again next month. If it should continue until the period fixed in the Motion the House will resume yet a. third time.
Do hon. Members really feel that it is through Debates in this House that a solution of our difficulties will be found, or that the dispute in the coal trade will he brought to an end by discussions across this table? if that were the case, surely there have been enough such discussions and debate to have shown us a solution. I believe I am correct in saying that 16 days of our Parliamentary time has been devoted this Session to a discussion of the state of affairs in the coalfields, and I am not aware that they have come near providing a solution of the difficulties. At any rate, they certainly have not succeeded in providing a solution. This dispute will only be brought to an end by the people who on one side or the other are engaged in the trade. To secure a settlement, what is done by them outside this House is far more important; action and agreement by them is far more urgent than any continuation of the discussions which have been so frequent in this House in the last few months. I submit that on the broad grounds of public policy it is against the interests and the welfare of the House that it should be called upon to sit in practically permanent Session. It is only in the gravest emergency and under imperative necessity it should be called upon to do so, and no such Urgency or necessity has been shown in the present case.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: The right hon. Gentleman hardly did justice in his opening sentences to the sincerity of the hon. Members who moved the Amendment and to those of us who intend to support it. The major part of his argument was against the utility of Parliament at all. It was an echo of the famous words, "Take away that bauble." All that this Amendment asks is that the House should be available for consultation should necessity arise. That is not an unreasonable request. The Prime Minister himself has set an example in this matter by abandoning his Continental holiday and remaining at home to be available for any negotiations. Is it therefore unreasonable to ask that this House should be available for such discussions? The negotiations in the coal dispute have taken a new and a very important turn in the last few days. The original resolution of the miners' executive has given place to a demand by the districts to negotiate on a totally new basis, and it seems to me, as an outside observer, that the importance of this change is not particular items in the Bishops' proposals, but that negotiations are to be opened; that the districts are to be asked to empower the executive to reopen negotiations. In view of the importance of this change it seems to me that Members of this House who, despite what the right hon. Gentleman seems to think, do represent the people of this country and the consumers of coal, should be available for consultation, and that the House should put the public interest before its own convenience.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Before we part with this Motion I think one comment must be made on the remarkable speech delivered by the Foreign Secretary. He told this House, and he weighed his words very carefully—as he always does—that this dispute was simply a matter for the owners and the miners. Apparently that view is endorsed by his faithful followers. In the North of England to-day the basic industries of this country are languishing. Day after day important works, engineering and textile works, iron and steel works, are closing down. My own constituency of Hull is being hit harder every day, and yet the excuse put forward by the right hon. Gentleman for the House rising, practically to all intents and pur-
poses until the 9th November, is that the whole matter rests with the owners and the miners. That is not the view which is taken by the people of this country or by the business community, and I am certain it is not the view of poor people who are being thrown out of employment on account of this stoppage. It is all very well for members of the Cabinet to look forward to a holiday. The great social functions of the season always see His Majesty's Government well represented, and it is borne in upon one that the present Treasury Bench is not really alive to the seriousness of the present situation. The Government are out of touch with the real people of the country I am speaking of the business interests and the great industrial trades in the North of England. The right hon. Gentleman has done himself and his Government a great disservice by the extraordinary statement he has made.

Mr. HARDIE: I take this opportunity of once more protesting against the curse of custom under which this House labours. We have heard a great deal as to the strenuous period through which the House has passed recently, but that strenuous period is created by the House of Commons itself. There is no Member of this House who can say a single word in favour of a three months' holiday, because, if they understand anything of health conditions at all, they would know that after an excessively strenuous period of work you cannot recuperate sufficiently in three months. The sanity of this House should be expressed in a system of what are called holidays between the real work. Instead of having desperate spasms of all-night sittings, if we were sane, we would have the work of the House so arranged that there never would be any all-night sittings or any attempt to crush six months' work into three months. We would organise so that we got the rest necessary for recuperation, and so that we could carry on work continually at the same high level of nervous expenditure. But the House does not do that. After the first three weeks of the Session the occupants of the Government Front Bench look as if they were going to have early funerals. No doubt a great many would like to see those early funerals, but I am not built that way, and I would like everyone to enjoy the health that I
enjoy. You can never get that with the self-inflicted, over-strenuous period of the present system.
If a Government has any sense of government it must exhibit that quality in itself. When a body calling itself a Government cannot organise business so as to give the best service and the maximum energy with properly organised periods of rest, it is very difficult for the public outside to be serious about the matter. Can anyone feel that Members are seriously responsible to their constituencies and to the country when they say that, because there is this state of depression and difficulty, Parliament will not meet again for three months? The whole thing is preposterous. Members misrepresent their constituencies when they close Parliament for a space of three months in face of the conditions existing to-day. I hope that the Government even now will organise business in such a way that there shall be not only a greater continuity in legislative work, but a greater continuity in the expression of the power of individuals.

Mr. TINKER: The reply of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs indicated that we were to meet at the end of the present month for a certain purpose, but that purpose will not appeal to the miners whom we represent. It is a gesture that will merely put further pressure upon them, for we are to meet to discuss the continuance of the Emergency Powers. If Parliament rests for three months the idea will be created that Parliament does not represent the people at all. We are in a very serious difficulty. Those whom we represent are looking forward to Parliament moving in the matter. What can be the feeling of the colliery workers if they know that for three months there is no attempt being made here to solve the difficulty. I suggest that if Parliament as an institution is to carry on the

government of the country, there must be some respect for the feelings of over a million people who are anxiously looking to Parliament to do something. I appeal to the Government in the interests of the country not to adjourn for so long.

Mr. SEXTON: I would not have intervened but for the opening sentences of the Foreign Secretary. Had he confined himself entirely to the fact that the House was going to meet in a very short time, I would have agreed with him, but I protest against the innuendo—I was going to say the covert sneer—at the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment, that if they had their own way they would not want the House to meet on the 17th, and that they were simply using this opportunity as an excuse for prolonging the business. The right hon. Gentleman also said that the House required recreation for mind and body. I wish that he would come down to the mining districts and see the recreation of mind and body going on there. I wish he could witness, as I witnessed last Saturday, when sitting in my own little bit of garden, the sight of four wan-faced women, one of them with a child sucking at an empty breast, and the mother begging bread along the road. The right hon. Gentleman would then have consideration for the health of mind and, body of the people who are suffering to-day. This kind of thing is embittering the mind of the people. I asked these women, "What are you going to do in view of the situation?' I was surprised at their reply. They said, "They may 'clam' and force them into the pits, but we will fight with our men to the last hour." That is the spirit of the people in the mining districts, and the House should not forget it.

Question put, " That the words 9th November ' stand part of the Question."

The House divided; Ayes, 173; Noes, 49.

Division No. 426]
AYES.
[12 noon.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Berry, Sir George
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Betterton, Henry B.
Chilcott, Sir Warden


Albery, Irving James
Blundell, F. N.
Christie, J. A.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
 Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
 Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Brass, Captain W.
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.


Atholl, Duchess of
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Cooper, J. B.


Balntel, Lord
Brittaln, Sir Harry
Croft, Brigadler-General Sir H.


Barclay-Harvey C. M.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Crookshank, Col. c. de W. (Berwick)


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Broun-Lindsay, Major H,
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gansbro)


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berke,Newb'y)
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Campbell, E. T.
Curzon, Captain Viscount


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.Sir.J.A.(Birm.,W.)
Davidson,J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovll)
Jacob, A. E.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Jephcott, A. R.
Ramsden, E.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Dixey, A. C.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Rye, F. G.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Sianey, Major P. Kenyon


Fermoy, Lord
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Fielden, E. B.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Smithers, Waldron


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Macintyre, Ian
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
McLean, Major A.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Fraser, Captain Ian
Macmillan, Captain H.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Galbraith, J. F. W.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Gates, Percy
Macqulsten, F. A.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel
Styles, Captain H. W.


Grant, Sir J. A.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Malone, Major P. B.
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Grotrian, H. Brent
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Templeton, W. P.


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Margesson, Captain D.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Tinne, J. A.


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Merriman, F. B.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Haslam, Henry C.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Hawke, John Anthony
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Watts, Dr. T.


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Murchison, C. K.
Wells, S. R.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
White, Lieut.-Col Sir G. Dairymple


Herbert.S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Hills, Major John Waller
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hilton, Cecil
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn.W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.)
Wolmer, Viscount


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Peto, Basll E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)



Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney,N).
Pllcher, G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hume, Sir G. H.
Power, Sir John Cecil
Major Hennessy and Captain


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton
Bowyer.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Fenby, T. D.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Gibbins, Joseph
Potts, John S.


Ammon, Charles George
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Barr, J.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hardie, George D.
Scrymgeour, E.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Sexton. James


Broad, F. A.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Bromley, J.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Stephen, Campbell


Buchanan. G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sutton, J. E.


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Tinker, John Joseph


Clowes, S.
Kelly, W. T.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Cluse, W. S.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Connolly, M.
Lawrence, Susan
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Dalton, Hugh
Lee, F.
Windsor, Walter


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
March, S.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton;


Day, Colonel Harry
Montague, Frederick



Duncan, C.
Palin, John Henry
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Batey and Mr. Whiteley.


Main Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved, "That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn until Tuesday, 9th November."

Adjournment (Summer)

Motion made, and Question proposed, " That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

>UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT.

Mr. W.ADAMSON: I desire to take advantage of this opportunity to bring before the notice of the Minister of Labour, the Government, and the House, a number of difficulties that have emerged in connection with the administration of Unemployment Insurance benefit. The general administrative difficulty will be dealt with later on by a number of my hon. Friends, and the particular phase of the question which I desire to bring to the notice of the Government, and particularly the Minister of Labour, concerns the difficulties that have emerged in the mining industry during the last three months. During that period, numerous claims for benefit have been turned down on grounds which we on these benches think are unjust and unfair. The difficulties to which I refer cover a very large number of cases, some of which come under the category of safety men, but a considerable number of which are men who have been turned down on the ground that they are involved in a trade dispute and who cannot be brought under the category of safety men. Their only crime evidently is that they are engaged in the mining industry. At the moment there is a dispute in that industry, and the Department for which the Minister of Labour is responsible has seen fit to turn down nearly every one of the claims of these men.
I am going to take only typical cases of the maladministration of unemployment insurance benefit. The first is the case of the safety men, for whom, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, arrangements were made before the dispute began to lift them outside the range of the dispute altogether. These men intimated to their employers that, notwithstanding that there was likely to be a stoppage, they intended to continue at work. In a large number of cases, for some reason or other, the employers did not see fit to avail themselves of the services of these men. Evidently, the safety of the mines was not a matter of first-class importance
to the employers during the present dispute, because they could afford to refuse the services of a considerable number of men who were available, and they intimated to them that their services would not be required. Naturally, these men made application for unemployment insurance benefit, and their claims have been turned down by the Insurance officer, the Courts of Referees, and finally in a number of cases by the Umpire himself. We claim that these men are justly entitled to receive payment of the unemployment insurance benefit under conditions such as I have outlined. I can very well remember the cry that went up from one end of the country to the other in 1921 when we had a similar dispute, and when it was decided that the safety men were not to work. All sections of people were horrified that the miner was prepared to allow the mines .to go to wreck and ruin and to be flooded. Here that very category of men offered their services, and in numerous instances the employers said, " No thank you, we do not require your services." They then made application to the right hon. Gentleman's Department for unemployment benefit, to which we believe they are justly entitled, and their claim is turned down.
Take the case of another class of safety men. Take the case of the men whose services were available and who were engaged, but whom the employers saw fit to employ only for one, two or three days per week. These men naturally put in a claim for part-time unemployment benefit, and, again, as in the case of the first class, their claim has been turned down. In connection with the second class I think a legal point is involved, and I am not sure what would be the decision of the Law Courts upon it. Notwithstanding the fact that these men are only working on one, two or three days each week, unemployment insurance contributions are deducted from their wages. They are bound to pay the contributions during the period of the dispute, but, evidently, the Minister and his Department consider that they are not entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefit, despite the payment of contributions. It seems to be a monstrous proposition that during the dispute the Government should continue to take these contributions while refusing to pay any benefit, and I wonder what the Minister would say to a proposition of that sort,
in the event of this dispute going on for 12 months instead of three months. I wonder would he and his Department maintain the same attitude? Personally, I think the position taken up by the right hon . Gentleman and his Department ought to be tested in the Law Courts, because I do not think that this kind of treatment would be justified by the Courts of the country.
Take the case of the apprentices employed in certain sections of the. mining industry, as, for example, the apprentice electricians. They are outside the dispute altogether. They are merely serving an apprenticeship and their conditions of employment are in no way involved. However the dispute ends, neither their wages, nor their hours of work will be affected in the least degree. These men's services were made available and it was intimated to the employers that they were going to continue their services but the employers have seen fit to throw these Men idle. They have made a claim and the answer has been that they are involved in a trade dispute, and cannot get benefit. There are also the cases of men who sustained injury in the course of their employment, and were idle and drawing compensation when the dispute began. The particular case which I have in mind is that of a man who, on 24th June, was declared to be fit for light work, and was prepared to take a job suited to his physical capacity if such a job could be found. The man would not have been able to return to his ordinary occupation as a miner, even if there had been no dispute and if the mines had been working, but, in his case also, benefit was refused on the ground that there was a trade dispute. I have also before me the case of a man who was ill, and who at the time when the dispute began was in receipt of national health insurance benefit. In this particular case, on 27th June, the man was declared by his medical attendant to be fit for light work, though he was not in a condition to return to his normal occupation even if there had been no dispute and if the work of the mines had been proceeding normally. Like the injured man whose case I have mentioned, he would have required light work. He was justly entitled in our view to unemployment insurance benefit, but his application also was turned down on the ground of the dispute in the mining industry.
1 have also particulars of the cases of six men who made their services available at one of the collieries in the part of the country which I have the privilege and honour to represent. The employer availed himself of their services, for a considerable part of the period of stoppage. Eventually he intimated to them that their services, for the time being, would not be required, but they were to hold themselves in readiness, and he would send for them when he required them. They naturally believed that they had a just claim to benefit, but their claim like the others has been rejected on the ground that they were involved in the trade dispute. I know that my colleagues have cases as clamant as those which I am bringing to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman, and I conclude by citing the case of a man who, like the vast majority of miners finished his contract on 30th April. He would have been idle for the whole of the period between then and now, but for the fact that he made efforts to secure employment in other branches of industry, and was successful. He went on with that other work for several weeks, and then his services were dispensed with, but during all the time he was engaged in that other occupation unemployment contributions were deducted from his wages. His claim for benefit has also been turned down.
As I stated at the beginning, out of thousands of cases such as I have quoted, only a mere fraction of the men concerned have had their claims recognised, and in some instances it is very difficult for those of us who have to handle cases of this kind to discover why one man's claim has been recognised, and another's ruled out. It is difficult to see any difference between the claim which is allowed and the claim which is rejected. In our opinion all these claims, of the various types I have mentioned, ought to have been recognised. We believe that the attitude which is being taken up towards these men is due to the desire of the Government to make things as difficult as possible for the men in the mining industry. We believe that attitude is being maintained for the same reason as the parish councils, the education authorities, and the boards of guardians are taking certain action—for the special purpose of making it impossible for the miners to continue the
struggle in which they are engaged. That struggle is a struggle to maintain the same standard of life in the miner's home as that which obtains in other homes in the land. It is an object which ought to appeal to every man who desires to see justice meted out to his fellowmen. Instead of the Government and the administrative bodies of the country putting difficulties in the way of the miners, that section of the community ought to have their sympathy and support in trying to obtain conditions of employment which are as equitable as those obtaining in other branches of industry. The cases I have mentioned are typical of thousands which have been rejected. I hope they will get the favourable consideration of the right hon. Gentleman and his Department. We believe that not one of them ought to have been turned down, because these men were not involved in the mining dispute, and some of them had not the remotest connection with it, and I trust their claim to benefit will receive just and fair consideration.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I rise to put a few points to the Minister of Labour. Most of them are of rather a parochial character, but one or two have a more national outlook. In the first place, let me state that I feel I ought to apologise for bringing forward matters concerning the administration of unemployment insurance in these days when we are discussing great questions such as inter-Allied debts, and so on.—

ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went, and, having returned,

Mr. SPEAKER: reported the Royal Assent to—

1. Finance Act, 1926.
2. Appropriation Act, 1926.
3. Land Drainage Act, 1926.
4. Petroleum Act, 1926.
5. Chartered Associations (Protection of Names and Uniforms) Act, 1926.
6. Isle of Man (Customs) Act, 1926.
7. Mining Industry Act, 1926.
8. Adoption of Children Act, 1926.
3036
9. Heather Burning (Scotland) Act, 1926.
10.Home Counties (Music and Dancing) Licensing Act, 1926.
11. Midwives and Maternity Homes Act, 1926.
12. Post Office (Sites) Act, 1926.
13. Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 4) Act, 1926.
14. Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 5) Act, 1926.
15.Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 6) Act, 1926.
16.Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 7) Act, 1926.
17.Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 8) Act,1926
18.Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 9) Act, 1926.
19.Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No.10) Act, 1926.
20.Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 11) Act, 1026.
21.Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Ashton-under-Lyne Extension) Act, 1926.
22.Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Ealing Extension) Act, 1926.
23.Tramways Provisional Order Act, 1926.
24. Land Drainage Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 2) Act, 1926.
25.Edinburgh Corporation (Streets, Buildings, and Sewers) Order Confirmation Act, 1926
26.Dundee Corporation Order Confirmation Act, 1926
27.Greenock Corporation Order Confirmation Act, 1926.
28.Church of Scotland Ministers' and Scottish University Professors' Widows' Fund (Amendment) Order Confirmation Act, 1926.
29.Kilmarnock Corporation Order Confirmation Act, 1926.
30. Paignton Urban District Council Act, 1926.
31.Teignmouth and Shaldon Bridge Act, 1926.
32. Chorley Corporation Act, 1926.
33.Kidderminster and Stourport Electric Tramway Act, 1926.
3037
34. Kingston-upon-Hull Corporation Act, 1926.
35.Mynyddislwyn Urban District Council Act, 1926.
36. Mexborough and Swinton Tramways Act, 1926.
37.Bolton Corporation Act, 1926.
38.Scottish Widows' Fund and Life Assurance Society's Act, 1926.
39.London County Council (Money) Act, 1926.
40.Colwyn Bay Urban District Councii Act, 1926.
41.Margate Corporation Act, 1926.
42.West Hampshire Water Act, 1926.
43.Manchester Ship Canal (General Powers) Act, 1926.
44.University of Reading Act, 1926.
45.Guildford Corporation Act, 1926.
46.Middlesbrough Corporation Act, 1926.
47.Dover Harbour Act, 1926.
48.Great Western Railway Act, 1926.
49.London Electric and Metropolitan District Railway Companies Act, 1926.
50.Manchester Ship Canal (Staff Superannuation) Act, 1926.
51.Metropolitan Railway Act, 1926.
52.Southern Railway Act, 1926.
53.Swindon Corporation Act, 1926.
54.Berwick - upon - Tweed Corporation (Freemen) Act, 1926.
55.Eastbourne Corporation Act, 1926.
56.Rhondda Urban District Council Act, 1926.
57.Worcester Corporation Act, 1926.
58.London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1926.
59.Bristol Corporation Act, 1926.
60.Stoke-on-Trent Corporation Act, 1926.
61.Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Gateshead Corporations (Bridge) Act, 1926.
62.Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation Act, 1926.
63.Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire Electrie Power Act, 1926.
64.Southend-on-Sea Corporation Act, 1926.
65.Gas Light and Coke Company's Act, 1926
66.Wolverhampton Corporation Act, 1926.

And to the following Measure passed under the provisions of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919:

Clergy Pensions Measure, 1926.

ADJOURNMENT (SUMMER).

Question again proposed, " That this House do now adjourn."

Mr. BUCHANAN: This subject of unemployment and the administration of unemployment insurance may not be quite so important, or loom so much in the public eye as other questions which have been before the House; notwithstanding, it is to a large number of people one of the greatest importance. I wish to raise, mainly, the question of unemployment in the city which I have the honour to represent in Parliament. A few days ago I put questions to the Minister of Labour regarding a number of disallowances in the city of Glasgow, and I also asked whether any fresh instructions had been issued by him narrowing or altering the scope of inquiry by the Committee or by his various managers throughout the country. With regard to disallowance, I want to say a word or two at the outset both with regard to men and women. On Monday last I asked the Minister of Labour how many applications for extended benefit had been made in the city of Glasgow, and how many had been refused, and I find there were 111,423 such applications, and out of that number 19,392 had been refused. In other words, something Like one out of every nine had been refused benefit.
Let me quote figures which are even more alarming. I asked the Minister of Labour how many females had made application for extended benefit, and I find that, during six months in Glasgow, roughly, 18,000 females had made application for extended benefit, and no fewer than 5,000 of them had been refused benefit, or more than one out of every four. When you take the whole of the unemployed in Glasgow, roughly speaking, it is one in nine, but when you separate the males and the females, the females amount to more than one in four. I want to ask, in the first place, why there is this great discrepancy between the treatment of male and female workers? The treatment of the male is shocking, in all conscience, but, in the ease of the female, it becomes even more severe, and is open to even more condemnation. One of the main reasons, if not the actual reason, why this benefit is refused now is that the applicant has not had a reasonable period of work during the last two years. Hitherto, the
reason was that the applicant was not genuinely seeking work, but in the last 12 months that has been supplanted by the reason that the applicant has not had a reasonable. period of work within the last two years. I remember the Minister of Labour under the Labour Government was severely taken to task, not only by Labour Members, but occasionally by Tory Members, for the Regulation, " not genuinely seeking work." It was hard to define what were the qualifications which fulfilled the test of "genuinely seeking work," and the Minister always replied that that was in the discretion of the Committee.
if that qualification were harsh—and it was extremely harsh—this new qualification is much more severe on the unemployed. Whereas an applicant for benefit always could prove, or had a chance of getting proof, that he was genuinely looking for work during the last two years, or during a lesser period, under the new condition of not having worked a reasonable period during the last two years, the applicant, in effect, is permanently refused benefit. In Glasgow, almost 10,000 applicants during the last six months have been refused benefit because, during the last two years, they have not had a reasonable period of work. Glasgow is mainly and essentially a shipbuilding and an engineering centre. That is the life-blood of the city of Glasgow. it may be argued by some Members opposite that this has been largely caused by the coal stoppage. I think the Minister of Labour will admit that, long before the coal stoppage, this problem was acute, and the qualification of " a reasonable period of employment " was operating harshly then, and the figures to which I have referred cover a period before the coal stoppage, and operated very adversely against the worker.
The Minister of Labour, in reply, no doubt will say that this is an insurance fund, that this fund is based on a certain calculation of income and expenditure, that you must keep a relation between those two sides of finance, and he will argue that this thing must he actuarially sound. Let us assume that this insurance fund is not to be dominated mainly and solely by the relief of unemployment, and that it is merely to be
dominated by the relationship of income and expenditure, and within those limits all other humane considerations must be shut out. That does not end the responsibility of the Minister of Labour. It only ends his answer for the insurance fund. What I want to ask him is, what is to become of the persons whom he rules out? Humanity has not reached the stage when you are going to march these people to an open field, and dispose of them in a speedy fashion. I assume that the Minister of Labour will agree that they have still got to live, and, accepting the right hon. Gentleman's actuarial basis, accepting his solvency of the fund, what does he intend to do with these people who have not had a reasonable period of employment during the last two years? I know he will say there are boards of guardians and parish councils, whose duty it is to relieve destitution. But the parish councils are not carrying out their work in that respect. Many of these men have been out of work for three, four or five years.
1.0 P.M.
I understand the Minister of Labour quite recently made some investigations, I think it was at Newcastle. I understand those investigations were for the purpose of further economy, to see what would be the result if he raised the number of weeks from 20 to 30 or from 30 to 40—I am not sure which. I understand the reply he got was that this would have very little, if any, effect on the figures, in view of the decision as to people who have not had a reasonable period of employment during the last two years. These men who have been out for two years are in the most depressed industries, and unless the Minister of Labour can either get the shipbuilding and engineering industries at work again on the old scale, as they were before the War, or get these people into some other industry, it looks as though they will be permanently out of work for some years. I ask the Minister of Labour not to be too much taken up with the question of the solvency of the fund. The fact that men have had in benefit twice or three times the amount they have paid in does not end his responsibility for their well being. They are still human beings, and the nation ought to keep them in efficiency until they are needed again for work.
The problem is bad enough in all conscience in the case of the males, but it becomes even more acute in connection with females. One cannot read that 5,000 women have been refused benefit in Glasgow during the last six months—not on account of the coal stoppage, because a large number were refused benefit prior to the coal stoppage—without serious reflection as to the effect this state of things may have on the moral problem. The Minister of Labour must face the question of paying benefit to these women or of turning them into other channels of employment, and I ask him not to enforce rigidly this Regulation as to a reasonable period of work during the last two years. I hope he will say that everyone who has been genuinely looking for work during the last two years shall be given either unemployment benefit or found some new wink, I visited recently one of the Exchanges in Glasgow and found that, roughly speaking, 70,000 people were signing-on. Out of that 70,000, 10,000 could not get any benefit at all, and are being supported, for the most part, out of the rates. That is 10,000 at one Exchange alone: there must be many more in the city of Glasgow as a whole.
Glasgow is a shipbuilding centre, and recently a committee there composed of employers and workpeople in the ship-building industry went into the question of how to solve the problem of employment, One of the things they pointed out was the handicap the industry suffers under by reason of high rates. In centres like Newcastle, Jarrow, Glasgow and Birkenhead it is recognised that the shipbuilding industry cannot face the future because of the high rates; yet the Minister of Labour is deliberately adopting a policy which cuts people off benefit and throws them on to the rates, thereby depressing the industry and creating more unemployment. Though actually pursuing the policy of cutting people off benefit, the Minister does not seem to feel he has any responsibility for initiating new schemes of alternative work. No doubt, he will say he has no power to do so, that the power rests with other Departments, but I say it is his duty to approach other Ministers and induce them to act in order that the numbers on the registers of unemployed are speedily reduced.
Here is one way in which help might be given to the shipbuilding industry. For years past I have been asking the Board of Trade to make a new survey of all ships trading to and from British ports. The hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) has more than once raised the question of the condition of the ships that trade between Glasgow and the Western Isles. If the Minister would inspect those ships he would find that the accommodation for the passengers was shocking, and the accommodation for the cattle too. On the one hand we have shipyard workers eating their hearts out for a job and disqualified for unemployment benefit because they have not had a reasonable period of work during the last two years—honest decent men—and on the other hand ships that are a disgrace to our country. Why cannot the two problems be brought into relationship with one another? Every day we hear about slum houses. His ship is the sailor's home, and why should we allow slum ships? The Minister of Labour ought to get the Board of. Trade to reschedule all ships, and every one not thoroughly equipped and completely up to date ought to be either repaired or scrapped. That would find useful work for men who are at present idle.
Another point I want to raise deals with instructions given to Exchange managers. I put a question to the Minister to-day as to whether new instructions had been issued to any of the Exchange managers, and the answer I got was a definite " No." I accept that, but I wish to ask the Minister whether it is not a. fact that recently managers of Exchanges, whether under his instructions or not—well, I accept his statement that it was not under his instructions—have been carrying out a new policy. Hitherto when a Member of Parliament or any other person wrote to a manager with respect to an applicant who had been refused extended benefit, if new evidence were produced the manager, according to my personal experience, very decently and kindly gave the applicant a new committee, and if the committee, after hearing the new evidence, altered their decision then benefit was granted. The manager could; if he liked, agree with the committee's decision or he could disagree with it. If he disagreed with it, then the case went to the Chief
Insurance Officer or the Divisional Controller; but if he agreed with it then the benefit, was automatically paid.
What happens now? If representations are made to the manager and a new committee is granted and the committee agree, after considering the new facts, to grant benefit, the manager has either been instructed not to agree with the committee or else he is taking upon himself not to agree with them, because in every case he is sending the particulars to Edinburgh or to the chief insurance officer in order that the application may be revised. That is a very harsh Regulation. I may be wrongly informed about these matters. I have only heard of it from people on the committees, not always too well informed themselves, and if I am wrong I will be glad to hear it. This proceeding is very harsh, because the manager usually knows the applicant and knows all the facts, but the person with whom the decision is now left, away in Edinburgh or in London, has no actual knowledge of the man. If any such new Regulation, instruction or idea is dominating the Minister, I hope he will withdraw it and allow managers to act as they formally did.
I do not want to raise individual cases, but I have here a letter from a man refused benefit under this regulation as to a reasonable period of work in the preceding two years, who before he became idle was in one job for 22½ years. He has been refused benefit because, during the last two years, he has not had a reasonable period of work—as a matter of fact he has worked only one week. For 22½ years that man has been a good citizen; his son served in the Army, and was severely wounded. He has given of his best as a workman and has reared a family, and this is his reward—no benefit and only parish council relief. The Minister may say that the actuarial soundness of the fund is the main thing, but that does not end his responsibility. Admitting that the solvency of the fund must be kept in mind, it is his duty, as one of His Majesty's Ministers, to go into the problem and see what alternative employment can be found for the large mass of the people throughout the country who are out of work. Last year I was a member of a Committee of this House which considered a Bill containing
a Clause cutting young men off from benefit if the income of the family was over a certain figure. I hope the Minister will reduce the harshness of that Clause.
There is only one other question, and that relates to domestic servants. The Minister has insisted, and I think rightly, that a mistress, before accepting a girl as a servant, ought to have a reference as to her past employment and to say if she be honest, clean and tidy. I do not object to that, it is reasonable for the mistress to expect that, but I submit that it is equally reasonable for the girl to ask for a similar reference as to her mistress, because mistresses are no better in character than are servants. If it is a good thing for the mistress to have a character from the girl, it is equally good for the girl to get a character about the mistress. Recent developments in the Law Courts have shown that that is becoming increasingly necessary. I hope the Minister of Labour will take every step possible to see that the girl, before leaving her home to go miles away into domestic service, is guaranteed as clean and wholesome a home as if she was living with her parents in her own place.

SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY.

Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: I want to raise here this afternoon a problem which, in the mind of great industrials in this country, is one of the most urgent and dominant, the problem of the future of shipbuilding in this country. I well understand that the great industrial issue that is before the country is a vital and important one. One understands that the feelings on both sides of that great industrial trouble have run very high, but, in regard to the great problem to which I desire to address myself, one is proud, as an engineer, to say that in every possible way the very best of good feeling obtains in all sections and strata of the shipbuilding industry. Both shipbuilders and employers, artisans and craftsmen are prepared to, and do, co-operate in every possible fashion on behalf of their trade. In a word, they are prepared to help themselves. All that they ask is that there shall be assistance in regard to certain factors and features which
weigh upon the industry and in regard to which His Majesty's Government can do very much to help and assist.
First let us see exactly the terrible position of the industry. On the North-East coast 55'3 per cent. of the shipbuilders are unable to obtain employment. This is not a passing feature. It may have been strengthened by the lack of coal, but for the past 10 years the shipbuilding industry has been steadily " worsening," if I may coin a word, and has steadily been unable to take its main position in regard to world ship supply that obtained some 15 or 20 years ago. When I turn to " Lloyd's List " I find that in 1892 one and an-eighth million tons were produced in our yards, whereas only a quarter of a million tons altogether were produced abroad. But when I look under the year 1925, I find that now one and one-ninth million tons of shipping were produced in the yards of other parts of Europe than our own, and our shipbuilding to be less than it was in 1892. When I remind the House that 39.2 per cent. shipbuilding employés on the average all over the country are out of employment and that unemployment has been gradually increasing the last four years, I hope hon. Members will appreciate the very grave position in which this industry is placed. I would also endeavour to point out to the Minister the fact, that the provision and the building of ships in this country is so vital that unless we can be assured of an absolute certainty in respect of our overseas trade and our export trade wherever the supply of ships made by us used to be so certain—remember we are the greatest exporting nation in the world—the 14 days' supply of food, which is all that is contained in this country, cannot economically be assured to us. This industry, to my mind, is the vital industry of the country and requires that that splendid comradeship, which has obtained between employés and employer, should be supported and sympathetically treated in practical fashion in certain ways, which I shall enumerate presently, by His Majesty's Government.
It may be asked, what are the main causes of the lack of work in our shipbuilding yards. They are many. One, which is a broad issue, and can only be touched upon indirectly either by the Government or by the people concerned
in the industry, is the overplus of tonnage in the industry at the present time. The hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the House suggested how this could be dealt with. The hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. L.Thompson) once gave us his scheme. Mr. Hill has a scheme very similar to that of the hon. Member for Sunderland and to that which the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has just suggested. I would remind those hon. Gentlemen that, while it may be right and proper that the very best accommodation on ship board should obtain, the essence of the position is that, if it be that American and European shipowners are prepared, as they invariably are, to run their barques and vessels a 15 to 20 per cent. longer period than is usual or permitted in this country again, so long as subsidies are unavailable, and if we have to rest on competition to obtain freightage, the schemes of the hon. Member for Sunderland or of Mr. Hills or of the hon. Member cannot be a solution which will provide work for the employés in the shipbuilding yards in this country.
The first position we have got to face is the lack of shipping trade available for shipowners. I want to pay my tribute on this point to the shipowners of this country, for I believe that all phases of the industry should have consideration in regard to any methods that may avail for the curing of this great difficulty. I went to a number of shipowners in this country, and said to them, "If I am to take a certain line in this matter with respect to asking the Government relief on taxes, rates and against profiteering in shipbuilding essentials, I want to know exactly what is the amount of profit you are making in respect of your work." I inspected seven different companies, and I found that in none of those seven companies for three years have they been able to show a 3 per cent. profit on their outlay, bearing in mind also the question of watered capital. I investigated that also.

Mr. CONNOLLY: Might I ask to what extent and to what number of firms did the hon. Member carry his investigation with regard to watered capital?

Sir W. SUGDEN: That is a perfectly fair interruption. I investigated seven companies. I took OPC which is referred
to in a Liberal paper last night, and the name of which I do not think it fair to mention without their permission. But if any hon. Member cares to look at the " Star" of last evening, he will find details there of how such a company, whose capital it is suggested is watered, has fared and how they are not able to show on their capital a bigger profit than I mentioned a moment ago. The shippers have to face the question of competition abroad, therefore there cannot be a clear or a full solution of our difficulty until there is a better improvement generally in regard to the carrying trade of the world. There is also the cost of the materials of shipbuilding, about which I shall have a word to say later. There is, again, the fact, which, to my mind, is vital for the industrial position of this country, that, so long as we are not able to retain the finest skilled engineering craftsmen of the world in our midst, those craftsmen are going abroad to found the basis of the keenest competition against our own home land in foreign shipyards. I do not blame them. If a man in the shipbuilding or engineering industry has specialised and worked, as he has to specialise and work, academically, technically and practically, in order to become a first-class engineer, at the end of that time he has a right to take his labour into the market that will give him the best return. If we in this country are not able to accept the full responsibility for the retention of our best craftsmen, we cannot blame them for going abroad and forming the basis of a competition which is taking work from even their own homeland.
One hon. Member mentioned the inquiry that has just been held by the Shipbuilding Employers' Federation and the shipbuilding trades unions, which was very exhaustive and very thorough. I intend to examine this now, but only to speak on the agreed conclusions which obtain. The first conclusion, which was arrived at by both employer and employed, was the fact that the foreign hours of labour very distinctly bore against the better conditions and hours of labour which obtain in this country in respect to competition prices. It was shown that, whereas Germany purports only to have an eight-hours day, they
work up to 54 hours. It was shown that in Holland, where again they are supposed to have an eight-hours day, they frequently work a 54-hours week and in some cases are working 10 hours by day and 9½ hours by night on an overtime basis varying from 15 to 20 per cent. above the normal price, whereas our period is 47 hours. Both sections of the trade agree that here the Minister can be distinctly helpful. The International Labour Section of the League of Nations has been helpful in some small part, but I suggest that, diplomatically as well as by the conferences which take place between our own Labour Minister and Ministers of Labour on the Continent, something could be done here of a practical purpose to try and bring into line the conditions obtaining on the Continent. So long as these Continental nations owe us money which they do not pay, so long as we are carrying a higher price of interest value on the money we borrowed from America mainly for them, we ought in fairness to compel some sort of consideration for our craftsmen and our neighbours from our competitors abroad, who are thus competing with our neighbours in an improper fashion by neither paying us the proper interest nor our capital, and thus escaping taxation so heavily existing both on employers and workmen in the shipbuilding industry.
Then there came the question of wages. Here again as everyone in the trade knows for our 47–hours week a skilled man gets 55s. 6d., a semi-skilled man 41s. 6d., and an unskilled man 38s. 6d. In Hamburg, for a 54–hours week a skilled man gets between 35s. 8d. to 37s. 7d., semi-skilled men 32s. 11d. to. 35s. Id., and unskilled men 28s. id. to 30s. 3d. The conclusions of the Conference were that they were not able to state exactly the contra consideration of the value and the cost of living in those different countries which has, of course, a very marked effect., and we have to face low. priced labour abroad. But even giving full consideration to these things, they agreed there is a very distinct difference which operates against us competitively so here again I say that as Holland, Germany, France and Belgium are under-selling us in regard to our labour, I suggest that the Minister has a distinct responsibility in respect to how
and in what fashion the responsibilities of those nations have to us should be counter-balanced to retain the highest standard of comfort here and also to the treatment we are receiving in regard to competition.

Mr. SHORT: Can the hon. Member say what British capital is invested in those concerns which are competing with us?

Sir W.SUGDEN: If my hon. and learned Friend, with his expert knowledge on foreign law, will compare the company laws of Germany, France and Belgium, he will find that British capital is so handicapped that it would not pay to utilise it to any great amount, because the law very distinctly depreciates the application of British capital in those foreign enterprises. Another feature I want to emphasise with reference to employés in the shipping trade is the importance of interchangeability and demarcation. I would recommend any student of industrial conditions and operations to consider the very splendid encouraging agreement which has been come to between the two sections of this trade in regard to interchangeability and demarcation. I do not intend to deal with these two points at any length, but I find that over 33 main and principal sections of the engineering industry have been particularised, and I feel that if some further similar utilisation could be obtained in the steel rolling, pig-iron, and in regard to the electrical industry it would have an important bearing upon shipbuilding, it would mean that we could obtain, without any lessenin in wage values to the other industries, the essentials of the shipbuilding industry such as steel, iron and other necessities cheaper and more competitively, which would enable us to build our ships at a price which would compete with foreign builders and would also enable our own shipowners to scrap their old vessels much earlier than now and thus produce more work in this country.
With regard to labour-saving machinery, if the Committee will forgive me, I should like especially to emphasise that feature. It is a fact that both in the engineering and other sections of the industry in this country the brains of craftsmen and the brains of inventors, if they have sometimes been discovered in
the more humble walks of life, have not always been adequately remunerated by their employers. I think, surveying the shipbuilding industry and the iron and steel rolling industries as a whole, the time has come when the employer under, stands that if he is to have the best brains, there must be one continual advance in regard to the furtherance of the greater application of the technicalities in every industry. I wish that the Government could do something in this direction by making it compulsory that where improvements and inventions may obtain in regard to work in these different industries as a result of workmen, such workmen inventors shall be properly rewarded and their inventions protected. It is now becoming properly understood that more machinery does not mean necessarily the putting out of employment labour, therefore the further introduction of machinery is more and more necessary if we are to aim at a higher standard of comfort, greater opportunities of life, and the lessening of the hours of labour.
An hon. Member his raised the question of the bearing of watered capital in the shipbuilding and engineering trade. I would like to quote from the report a clause bearing on this matter of watered capital in the shipbuilding industry as follows:
 We think it desirable also to explain to you that on a test made in respect of contracts taken and completed by our members during the last three years we find that the prices have been such that on the average the margin over labour and material has been so small as to cover only the increased local rates which firms have had to pay. There has been, therefore, on these contracts no margin at all for cost of administrationi, salaries, and management or directors.' fees, or any of the upstanding charges which are a necessary part of the cost of every establishment. For example, depreciation of plant and machinery and other capital upkeep.
There are three other features which one must mention in regard to that problem, one is the question of the local rates. It may be an advantageous custom with municipalities in this country in regard to their finance when schemes have been put into operation to provide sinking funds and thereby include a certain sum for depreciation also, but those of us who are engaged in industry know that in hard times sometimes it is impossible to provide for depreciation. We know that
there are occasions when things are bad and to keep our workers together we cut our prices to the bone, and when the returns are not showing as good results as we expected, then we also waive the question of depreciation. To my mind the Government in such areas as I have the honour to represent, in some of the great shipbuilding areas wherein it is shown that high rates and terrible unemployment obtains as in our industry where it has reached 55 per cent. on the north east coast, the question of sinking funds should for the time being be waived as would be done by any shrewd business men, and quotas obtained from other areas where little or no unemployment obtains, and what a business man would do ought to be good enough for the Government or a municipal undertaking. Some of these great shipbuilding yards, which at the call of the Government enlarged their works for the manufacture of munitions, have now most of their machinery and the majority of their men unemployed, and the rates thus necessarily weigh still more heavily upon the cost of tonnage and to a much greater degree than would be the case if all the machinery was running if the men were fully employed. Here again the Government could do something by a differentiation in taxation and a lower scale of national local taxation could be adopted to fit in conditionally a proportion of men were employed. I hope the Government will do something in this matter, even by utilising some improved scheme of insurance of lessened contributions, etc. The next matter which requires very distinct consideration. That both employers and employed should examine the cost of materials and equipment in regard to lead paint, ropes, electric cables, upholstery, light castings, and sanitary fittings in regard to which there has been an unjustifiable advance in the cost between 1913 and 1926. I understand that proof of profiteering from a legal standpoint is very difficult, and the remedy is not so easy as might be suggested, but I say that we have responsibilities in this matter and any man who sits in this House and permits unjustifiable profit making which in any way depreciates the obtaining of legitimate labour has a right to call for protection against this unjustifiable
profit making. I ask the Government, and I promise co-operation by this industry, both employers and workmen, to so inaugurate tests and researches, and introduce legislation, that it may be possible whilst a fair profit is obtainable for those who produce these things which are so essential to see that only a fair profit shall be obtained.
In conclusion, I for one would consider it a distinct insult to ask for any consideration of the lessening of the price of labour in the shipbuilding industry. When I consider that for the amount which is given to a skilled craftsman working as an engineer there are unskilled labourers in this city getting more pay, when I remember that there are men and women employed in industry in which there is no unemployment and yet they are better paid, when I remember these things say, if there must be any consideration in regard to the alteration of wages, it must certainly be on the upward grade, unless by a reduction of the cost of living, and a raising of the standard of comfort of those employed in this industry the same rate of payment can give better results to the workers. That is the problem which one must address one's self to because there cannot be any further cut in regard to wages. We have first to see that the local cost on industry shall be distinctly lessened. Next we must in order to relieve the heavy bearing of national taxation see that what is due to us in some cases as a result of the nonpayment of our debts and interest to us by our foreign competitors overseas, who are shirking their taxation, is dealt with at once. We must see that the high unnatural cost of materials used in the industry is reduced next, highly specialised machinery be employed to help production, and if these main features can be thus dealt with, then the same happy co-partner relationships that do exist between different sections in this industry, will continue and carry us slowly on the road to elimination of our difficulties. To-day we have the record of being the finest shipbuilders in the world, and not only can we build ships better than those built by any other nation in the world, but we are able to compete with them successfully, and in so doing we must secure to our own craftsmen those advantages which they have a right to expect.

Mr. J.HUDSON: We are rather accustomed to listening to speeches of an unreal nature from, hon. Gentlemen on the benches opposite. But I confess I have rarely listened to a speech so unreal as that of the hon. Member for the Hartle-pools (Sir W. Sugden), in spite of the demand put forward in it for better conditions in the shipbuilding industry, when one remembers that the Government which the hon. Member supports have been mainly responsible for the inflation of tonnage which has helped to create the difficulties that exist in the shipbuilding industry, and when one remembers the policy that the Government. have pursued, first in the Peace Treaties, and now by limiting the powers of British ships to bring goods to this country by the policy of safeguarding and other things of that sort. If the Government continue in power for any length of time, and continue to carry out the safeguarding policy upon which they have embarked, it is very likely that even fewer ships will be required than are being used at the present time.
I rose, however, to bring to the notice of the Minister of Labour the position that is being created as a result of the application of the ordinary regulations of the Ministry regarding unemployment, particularly under the special conditions that the coal stoppage has created in industries unconnected with the coal industry. In the borough that I represent, a large number of mills have had to shut down, in some cases unexpectedly, on account of the shortage of coal. The workers in those mills have been expecting that something would happen to enable coal to be got for the mills, and I admit they have not been very seriously searching for work in other mills, knowing as well probably as the Minister knows that other mills are affected by the same causes which have created the condition of unemployment in their own. They have been insured contributors, and have done their part in the Unemployment Insurance scheme, and they have gone to the Employment Exchange expecting that unemployment benefit would be paid to them; but, because it has been possible to urge against them that they have not been making genuine efforts to find work—and I submit that there was no particular reason why they should have wandered about from mill to mill, knowing that so many mills have been shut
down on account of a temporary shortage of coal—that has been found to be sufficient to cut them off from receiving unemployment benefit. That is an extremely unfair proceeding. I submit that the Ministry of Labour, during the continuance of the coal stoppage, ought not to make this extreme demand upon the workers who are thrown out of employment on account say of a temporary stoppage of their mill due to shortage of coal.
One other point that I want to bring to the notice of the Minister is in regard to the attitude that the Ministry continues to adopt in connection with the employment of young women, or, as I might describe them in this case, young girls. I have had a case brought to my attention this week by one of the Anglican clergymen, and I mention that to show that I have not my information through the usual channels. Indeed, I am very glad that the Anglican clergy are taking more notice of what is happening in the industrial world. Many of them are helping to bring to the attention of the Ministry very serious evils in connection with the administration of unemployment insurance when young women and girls are concerned. I have had brought to my notice the case of a young shorthand typist in the Huddersfield district, aged 20, who applied for unemployment benefit and has been recommended, and, indeed, to the extent to which they have the power, compelled, to accept a position in Spalding, a good many miles away, at £2 a week. She refused to accept the position. She refused in this case under the encouragement of her friends. She is one of the many girls who have been carefully sheltered in their home life. She has not gone out into the general industrial system and cut herself off from her home connections, and she has been confronted for the first time in her life with the necessity of going far from home into new conditions—conditions that might easily prove morally dangerous. for a girl of this type and of this age.
The Anglican clergyman who sent me this information suggests, and I agree with his suggestion, that, where the Ministry of Labour discovers that a girl has never left her home, it ought not, through it insurance officers, two insist on her taking a long journey from home to go to any new job that may offer.
It may not seem to be very unreasonable where a woman is used to knocking about the country and going from place to to place, and has accustomed herself to standing up to the difficulties of the world in which she lives, and I agree that in a case of that sort the Ministry, through its officials, might well expect that a girl should leave her home and take up such position as offers. In the case, however, of a girl like the one to whom I am referring, who has not been accustomed to that sort of thing, I hope it may be possible for the Ministry to recommend to its insurance officers that whether it be a question of sending typists to new jobs 100 or 200 miles away, or whether it be a question such as my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has frequently raised, of sending a girl to a positions in domestic service, those positions should not be forced upon applicants for benefit unless it can be proved that they are accustomed to leaving their homes, and have got so used to the type of life that it is easy for them to go from one job to another and take lodgings in different parts of the country. I feel sure that, if the Ministry could meet me on the matter I am putting forward, and could accept the suggestion of my reverend friend in the communication that he has sent to me, it would meet a good many cases of hardship, and might prevent serious difficulties for girls who are confronted for the first time in their lives with being compelled to leave home in order to meet the conditions laid down by the Employment Exchange.

Mr. CONNOLLY: My remarks will be directed, not so much to the Minister in charge of the Debate, as to one or two of his colleagues, and I am very pleased to see that the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department is in his place, because I have one or two questions to ask him. I desire to focus the attention of the House once again upon the question that has been raised by the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Sir W.Sugden), and also by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). I am impelled this afternoon to raise again in this House the question of the shipbuilding industry, because a new threat is held over the industry that threatens to make the last
condition worse than the first. Quite recently we have had a suggestion, which almost amounts to a threat, that the Trade Facilities provisions are about to be withdrawn from the industry. If that be done, it will be little less than a, calamity in the present state of trade in the shipbuilding industry. There are signs of a revival—they are very slight, but still, they are there. If we get this further blow we shall go back again.
I have reminded the House, and so have other Members, including the last speaker, that the shipbuilding industry has a gaping wound in its side, caused by the policy that has been pursued with regard to Reparations. I am not going over the old ground again, hut I would point out that the Government, whether it be a Liberal, a Tory or a Labour Government, is under a deep obligation to the shipbuilding industry; and I want to speak this afternoon of this threat—for threat it is—to withdraw the trade facilities provisions from the industry and further worsen things. In my own constituency we have been able, under the Trade Facilities Act, to give employment to hundreds of men at home and in Newfoundland on a job that was undertaken there. The firm concerned, which is the largest in my Division, having four shipbuilding yards in East Newcastle, got credits for over £2,000,000 and thereby gave employment to this very large number of men for a period of well over two years. I mention this to show that during the trade depression we have benefited on Tyneside, and Wearside has also benefited from the Trade Facilities provisions. I do not know whether anything has been done for the district of the hon. Member for The Hartlepools, but on the Wear and on the Tyne we have benefited to a considerable extent by the operation of the Trade Facilities Act. Now we are threatened with the withdrawal of this provision at a most inopportune time. I hope that the Minister of Labour, who has now come back to his place, will communicate to his colleague our protest, because I am sure my colleagues agree with me in protesting against the suggested withdrawal of the provisions of the Trade Facilities Act.
I want to say something in support of what has been said by the hon. Member
for Gorbals and the hon. Member for the Hartlepools on the question of the rings that are keeping the industry from rising to its feet again. I have also a copy of the Report of which the two hon. Members spoke, and in this joint Report of the trade unions and the shipbuilding employers an emphatic protest is made against the operation of these rings that are running up the prices of shipbuilding equipment to an abnormal report. The Report says that the firms in question are charging prices that are unreasonably high as compared with pre-War prices for the same commodity, and unreasonably high also as compared with the general level of prices. In contradistinction to the assistance that is given in other countries, we have the remarkable fact that where a shipbuilding firm in this country can give an order that can be regarded as a wholesale order on account of its bulk, these firms absolutely refuse to supply the shipbuilding firm, and compel them to deal through intermediaries, again forcing up the cost of ships' scantlings and equipment. The Report makes a most emphatic protest against this sort of thing, and a letter was sent to the President of the Board of Trade on the matter. The President of the Board of Trade promised to make a close investigation into these allegations of profiteering in ships' materials, and I should like the Minister of Labour to remind him that we are awaiting some report of his investigations into this matter of exploitation by rings in the case of shipbuilding equipment.
2.0 P.M.
I am glad the Secretary for Overseas Trade is here. I was very interested. when the question of credit guarantees was discussed in the quotations that were made by several Members from answers given to a questionnaire he sent
out with regard to overseas trade I remember the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taylor) quoting a reply to question 6 by the large and important firm of Hornby Ruston and Company, who employ something like 5,000 engineers even in these very slack times. They said most emphatically that there was no lack of orders for engineering implements, and particularly those in which they specialise. They said there was no question as to prices. Their prices compared favourably with their competitors and orders could be got. The one great
obstacle was the question of long term credit. I am very pleased to be able to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the scheme he has brought forward to give assistance to those firms whose prices and whose manufactures are all right, but who have been handicapped by not being able to give long-distance credit. I want to ask him whether the benefit of this credit guarantee scheme, which I understand covers engineering, could be extended to cover shipbuilding. Perhaps it would be convenient for the hon. Gentleman to answer that question before I proceed to deal with what orders might be got if the benefit of the scheme is extended to the shipbuilding industry.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I will do my best to answer the hon. Member's question at such short notice. I do not think the Government will depart from the policy they laid down in regard to building cargo boats. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. J. Hudson) pointed out that there has been a great loss to the shipbuilding trade owing to what he called the inflation policy, by which I suppose he meant the taking of ships as reparations. Probably lying behind his view is the principle which I myself advocated some few years ago from the opposite benches, and which the Government has still as its policy, namely, that it does not want to see more cargo boats put on the water, because the additional steamers might injure our trade and depreciate freights and so reduce our invisible exports. I do not think, therefore, I can give the hon. Member any hope that, except in very exceptional circumstances, the Advisory Committee—they will go into each proposal on its merits—will recommend this new scheme of credit guarantee to be applied to the building of cargo boats.

Mr. CONNOLLY: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I am not speaking with regard to giving credit guarantees for home ships. I am speaking about foreign orders.

Mr. SAMUEL: The Advisory Committee would give very careful consideration to any and every project laid before it. If a shipbuilder came before the Advisory Committee who had been offered or given an order for ferry boats, river craft, ice breakers, dredgers, or passenger boats for a foreign river or port, I am
inclined to think the committee would recommend that such an order should receive favourable consideration.

Mr. CONNOLLY: I am pleased to have that answer because it is in connection with foreign trade that I have raised the question. I have here the Report of the Russian Mercantile Marine. I have never spoken upon Russia or Russian matters in this House. I believe Russia is big enough and strong enough to stand on her own feet and, despite what we may or may not do, she will remain a great and powerful nation, as she has always been. This Report states that war wastage accounted for 794 steamers, and that for river craft there has been a diminution of 1,802 vessels. I submit that there is here a big field for our shipbuilders getting orders.

Mr. SAMUEL: I can tell the hon. Member that my Department will not object to extending the facilities of credit guarantee to cover small tugs and boats ancillary to ports and for inland navigation.

Mr. HARDIE: Does that cover Russia?

Mr. SAMUEL: No.

Mr. CONNOLLY: This is an important question, as far as the small craft are concerned, and I would certainly advise serious consideration to extending credits to these vessels that are mentioned here, or to the replacement of vessels most of which would not come into competition with our own trade.

Mr. SAMUEL: Which are they?

Mr. CONNOLLY: The river craft would not come into competition at all. So far as the 794 steamers are concerned which are mostly engaged in the Eastern trade, they would not come into serious competition. The scheme is an admirable one. I hear nothing but praise for it, and if it could be extended it would be a great boon and a veritable charter to the engineering trade and would get us out of our difficulties. I would seriously advise the Department and the Committee to consider the question of extending its scope to bring in cargo vessels—deep-seagoing boats. The hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Sir W. Sugden) mentioned the handicap we are under in the industry
with regard to hours as against Continental hours. It is true that in Germany and in Holland, though nominally there is a 48–hours week, they have by some elasticity in the agreement been able to work 53 and 54 hours.

Sir W.SUDDEN: Also in regard to overtime in Holland they are working a night shift as well as a day shift.

Mr. CONNOLLY: I was referring not so much to that as to the actual elasticity of the agreement with regard to basic hours, and in that we are suffering from their competition. At the same time I am not one of those who believe we can live by taking other people's living from them. It is at home where we want to direct our attention. The fault lies with us because we have refused to ratify the Washington Convention. Germany, Holland, France and Italy are prepared to fall into line if we do so, so that this disability that we are suffering under can be removed if our own country will ratify the Washington Convention. There is a sign of revival in the industry. The largest yard in my division has berths cleared for five ships, two of them of 10,000n tons, but we cannot get on on account of the stoppage in the coal industry. We all feel that the time has come for everyone to concentrate his mind upon a settlement of the dispute. There would be hundreds of men employed in East Newcastle to, day on those five ships had it not been for want of coal and material caused by the coal stoppage. I earnestly ask hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench to convey to the Government our exhortation to bend to this task of getting a solution of this unfortunate dispute.

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT.

Mr. CAPE: I want to deal with a matter of local importance as far as the town of Workington is concerned. Within the last two or three years we have been making frequent appeals to the Ministry to build a new Employment Exchange or to obtain some better building than we have at present. I have sent personal letters to the Department, and have asked questions in the House. Some of the replies, as usual, have been of a rather encouraging nature and some have been very discouraging, but the Department has already had its surveyors
and inspectors inquiring in regard to sites. The last information I received from the Department was that they had made up their minds not to proceed with a new building. Since that time the local employment committee have taken the matter up seriously, and at their last meeting they were unanimous in asking the Minister to apply his mind in this direction and do something to make the conditions better and more adequate, both for those who are wanting unemployment benefit and also for the staff. We have had a large number of unemployed for a number of years. The chief industry is iron and steel, which has been suffering greatly, and a large number of men have been continually on the unemployed list.
The conditions that these men have to undergo when they go to sign on or to receive their unemployment pay, are deplorable. There is no shelter from the weather, and it is pitiable to see the men in queues in wet weather. The Department is divided into two sections in the town and the conditions are difficult for the staff as well as for those dependent upon unemployment benefit. I strongly complain of the lack of interest taken in this matter by the Department, and I appeal to the Minister to give it more consideration in the future and, if possible, to make immediate provision
for better accommodation. If the Department is not prepared to build a new Exchange, there are, surely, buildings in the town of a more commodious character which could be acqured for the purpose. I hope that the Minister will take note of the unanimous resolution which has been passed by the committee in the district:
`"Resolved unanimously that this committee protest most strongly against the delay in securing proper and suitable accommodation for the Workington Employment Exchange, and that a copy of the resolution be sent to the local Member of Parliament.
I expect that a copy has been sent to the right hon. Gentleman. I heartily endorse the views expressed in the resolution.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: The position of the Minister of Labour is extremely difficult, in view of the very long and unjustifiable adjournment of the House. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who spoke as the responsible Cabinet
Minister with regard to the necessity for a very long holiday for overworked Members of the House, made a very misleading statement. The present condition of the house shows about nine Members of the Conservative party present. That has been the maximum attendance on the opposite benches since the Foreign Secretary spoke. It has been known to us that out of the 400 Conservative Members, for more than three-fourths of the time scarcely 20 Members attend to their duties. To describe them to the country as an overworked and exhausted band of hard-working men, who deserve a three months' holiday, is a grossly misleading statement.
The position of the Minister of Labour during the long Adjournment will be extremely difficult, because he will not be able to keep in a happy condition of employment the men and women of this country so long as he permits his colleague in the Cabinet, the Foreign Secretary, to roam wild with his prejudices in China. The Canton Government has been trying its utmost to come to an amicable settlement with the British on the question of the British boycott, and to revive the normal conditions of trading with Great Britain. The question of shipbuilding, unemployment and Employment Exchanges will become extremely difficult to handle if the Foreign Secretary deals with the revolutionary Government of Canton and of China generally in the same spirit of bias and on the lines of the policy of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face, that has been followed in regard to Russia during the last five or six years. I appeal to the Minister of Labour that when Parliament is not functioning he will keep a look-out on the activities of his colleague in the Foreign Office, and that he will be our representative in the Cabinet to look after the vagaries and whimsical ideas of the Foreign Secretary. The same remarks apply in regard to the Russian trade position. Everyone now feels convinced that the policy of the Government of not trading with Russia, of not building ships if they are intended for Russia, and of not building ships for Great Britain to bring produce from Russia, is a one-sided policy which will have to be given up.
I would like to draw attention to another Department where the right hon. Gentleman will have to act as our deputy
when the House goes to sleep, instead of attending to its proper functions. He will have to keep a sharp look out on the Secretary of State for India.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is giving a rather wide extension to the functions of the Minister of Labour. He may ask the right hon. Gentleman to communicate his views to the right hon. Gentlemen concerned.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: I am afraid that the Government are compelling us to take this course by telling us to go away and not to perform our duties when we are willing and ready to perform them. I am drawing the attention of the Minister of Labour to the fact that his Department will suffer heavily if the already bad trade between this country and India is rendered still worse. There is every likelihood that the Governments policy in India if not rectified before the next election takes place in India will mean that the Minister of Labour will have his hands full when he comes back on the 9th November, because unemployment will be rife in Lancashire and in the machinery trade and the shipbuilding industry.
The Minister of Labour has long overlooked a very important function, and that is to keep an eye on what is done in certain other Departments. For instance, in connection with the Colonial Office and the India Office, so long as the exploitation of cheap labour is allowed to go on and to compete with industries here, the Minister of Labour will never be able to look after his job in an efficient way. On the one hand he will make profuse promises to this House to curtail unemployment, while on the other hand his colleagues at the Colonial Office and the India Office will be supporting a policy in other parts of the Empire which is bound to cause unemployment in this country, by developing industries in competition with the industries of this country, carried on by means of labour which is in every sense of the word nothing but slave labour appeal to the Minister of Labour not to spend his holidays somewhere on the Continent, or in Australia or Canada, but to keep in close touch with Downing Street and to see that these gross abuses do not take place.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): One or two points have been raised to which I would like to give a brief answer, but I am afraid that whatever I do it will be impossible to satisfy the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala). He has sought to invest me with considerably extended functions, and has asked me whether I I would be his representative in the Cabinet. I am not quite certain for whom he spoke when he used the word "our." I understood that he was in a unique position on the benches opposite, and that he speaks for a party of one. I am not certain that that is the case, but in any event I am afraid that I cannot undertake to be his representative in the Cabinet. The only thing which made me think that there had been a conversion in his case was his reference to the competition with goods made in this country of articles produced by cheap labour elsewhere. He described it as slave labour.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: The right hon. Gentleman looks at me. It is not new to find a Communist and a Protectionist in the same camp.

Sir A.STEEL-MAITLAND: I thought I heard little noises coming from the direction of the hon. and gallant Member, and that caused me to turn my eyes in that direction. I wonder whether this is the beginning of changing sentiments on the part of the hon. Member for Battersea North.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: I did not appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to permit this slave labour to be created and to continue, and then to introduce a farcical system of Protection in this country? I meant that the Government should give up the nefarious task of exploiting cheap labour, and that they should not have cheap labour in any part of the British Empire under the British trade union standard.

Sir A.STEEL-MAITLAND: I hope the hon. Member's logical sense will lead him further to this conclusion, that if he wants to avoid the possibility of competition between goods made in this country and goods made by cheap labour in the Dominions or any of the British Possessions, he should realise that that competition is equally dangerous from goods made by cheap labour in foreign countries.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: We do. Therefore, we demand a world international communism.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Both a world international communism and the milder proposals adumbrated by the right hon. Gentleman would involve legislation.

Sir A.STEEL-MAITLAND: It seems to me impossible to satisfy the hon. Member. At least I am now quite sure that I am beyond hope as representing his views in the Cabinet. I will now deal with some points which have been raised which are more immediately concerned with my Department than are such questions as those mentioned by the hon. Member affecting the Foreign Office and the Colonial Office, or the relations between the Dominions and other parts of the Empire. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Cape) did not give me notice of the question which he has raised in regard to his constituency, but he has had the courtesy to give me a copy of the resolution which has been passed regarding the Employment Exchange. I will gladly look into the question. Of course, he must realise, like everybody else, that it is impossible to erect buildings as good or as adequate as we would wish on the one hand, and at the same time to enforce stringent economies. The programme in connection with the erection of buildings is going forward slowly. The hon. Member for Wallsend (Miss Bondfield) had the same trouble in her day. If I remember aright, the views of her colleague in the Ministry of Labour in regard to the dead-hand of the Treasury were at least as severe and outspoken as anything to which I have given utterance. She had the same difficulty in her time as I have had in mine.

Miss BONDFIELD: With the Office of Works also.

Sir A.STEEL-MAITLAND: I agree that there is more than one sinner. One cannot go forward as quickly as one would wish. The hon. Member for Newcastle East(Mr. Connolly) drew attention to the question of shipbuilding industry and trade facilities, and to the effect of rings upon certain categories of subsidiary manufactures of machinery. The first question is a matter for the Treasury and the second for the Board of Trade. If he desires to do so, I hope he will press his remarks in those
directions during the vacation. If the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. J. Hudson) will send me particulars of the case to which he referred I will gladly go into it, but at the same time I must point out that we take all the care we can to see that where other employment is offered it is reasonable in all the circumstances to ask the man to take it. That is done in every single case. I had no knowledge of the reasons why the hon. Member asked the question yesterday, but it was a perfectly genuine offer. If he will give me particulars I will see that it is gone into, and if he wishes will communicate the result to him. Let me now deal with the remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife (Mr. W. Adamson) who referred to the safety men in mines. I wish the right hon. Gentleman were present, because if he had had the advantage of a consultation with his colleague who represents the Wallsend Division (Miss Bond-field) I do not think he would have made the speech. I have every sympathy with the safety men. They are pivotal as regards the mines, and no one wishes them to receive anything except the fairest treatment. They have always put their case perfectly moderately and fairly, but the complaint of the right hon. Gentleman is really a different matter altogether. Let me call attention to the phrase he used towards the end of his speech. He said:
 I think it is the general desire of the Government to make it as difficult as possible for the men in the mining districts, whether as regards unemployment benefit—
And he then went on to mention boards of guardians and education. Let me say at once, and categorically, that the right hon. Gentleman was making a charge for which there is absolutely no foundation of any sort or kind. I should have imagined that if he had any regard for the facts of the case he would have inquired into the matter. He would then have found that his charge had no foundation at all, and that he had no reasonable shadow of belief whatever for making statements of that kind. Everybody regrets the continuation of the coal dispute, but no one in the mining industry, or in any other industry, can gainsay the fact that far from it being the intention on the part of any body "to make it as difficult as possible," there has been more
help forthcoming in this dispute than in any great dispute of this kind in the history of this country. Let me take his case with regard to the safety men. The logical sense which I should have expected has deserted him, and so also has his knowledge of the actual insurance system. He said it was a perfectly monstrous proposition that the safety men should not at the moment be receiving unemployment benefit. It is not a question as to whether I want to give them unemployment benefit or not. The question is whether they are entitled to it under the actual law. No one in the Ministry of Labour can break the law in order to give a man benefit which is flatly contrary to the law. If the right hon. Gentleman will consult Section 4 of the Act, of 1924 he will see that in these circumstances it is contrary to the law as laid down, and if he asks who is responsible for this Section, I must tell him that he himself and his friends on the Opposition Benches are themselves responsible for the law under which this benefit is refused.

Mr. BUCHANAN: It was due to the pressure brought to bear from the Conservative and Liberal Benches.

Sir A.STEEL-MAITLAND: The party opposite are responsible for it. They are responsible for putting in the words
 does not belong to a grade or class of workers.
When you come down to actual facts, and take the precise words under which this disqualification has taken place, and hon. Members opposite are asked whether they were inserted by pressure and against their wishes, not a single hon. Member can reply.

Mr. WHITELEY: The Amendment was moved by the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon)

Sir A.STEEL-MAITLAND: Yes, but not the words
 does not belong to a grade or class of workers.
At any rate, I must point this out, that it is not a question whether we want to benefit the safety men or not. It is completely out of my power. It is determined by the words of the Act, and when that Act comes to be construed it is construed, ultimately, by the umpire. The right hon. Gentleman said that this
question should be tested in a Court of Law. Again, if he had only consulted his colleague on the Front Bench he would have understood that it is not a question of testing in a Court of Law but that the final decision is with the umpire, and any Court of Law would hold that it is outside its jurisdiction to question a decision of the umpire in view of the express provision of the Act of 1920, Section 11, which says that
 the decision of the umpire in the matter shall be final and conclusive.
I have stated these facts as clearly as possible because of the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman made his charge. He said it was a monstrous proposition; that it should be tested in the Law Courts, and that, finally, it was a proof of the general desire of the Government to make things as difficult as possible for the men in the mining districts. There is no justification whatever for his general statement. It is another proof of the way in which charges of this kind break down when they are subject to close examination. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) said that as Minister of Labour I was deliberately and as a set policy cutting off people from benefit, throwing them on the rates and thereby putting pressure on the rates and creating more unemployment. I think I have quoted him correctly.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Very nearly.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Sufficient for the purpose. Let us see what the facts are. The proportion of those who have been disallowed benefit is not increasing, and if the hon. Member will compare the figures of the last two months with those of the beginning of the year he will find that the proportion of claims which have been disallowed is less and not greater than it was previously. Therefore, as regards the actual fact, his statement does not hold good.

Mr. BUCHANAN: But there is a large proportion who are not claiming benefit because they have been refused so often. They are, therefore, permanently off the list and are not included in the figures.

Sir A.STEEL-MAITLAND: I should have thought the hon. Member would have seen that they made their claim if they are at all entitled to do so. The hon. Member also contends that there
has been a change in the particular count under which they have been disallowed, and that instead of action being taken under the words, "not genuinely seeking work," it has been taken because they have not had work enough during the last two years.

Mr. BUCHANAN: That is right.

Sir A.STEEL-MAITLAND: I want to be quite clear what the hon. Member means. He wishes these cases to be considered under the words, " not genuinely seeking work," and complains that they have been decided on the count that they have not had work enough during the last two years. I see what he wants. He does not want these cases to be considered by the committees but by the insurance officers.

Mr. BUCHANAN: No, no!

Sir A.STEEL-MAITLAND: Then I must point this out to him. He deprecates the change from "not genuinely seeking work" to not having had sufficient employment in the last two years. " Genuinely seeking work " is one of the general statutory conditions and the case goes before the insurance officer and not before the committee. His complaint is that there has been a change from that and that these cases now go before the committee.

Mr. TINKER: Local committees are considering these cases under the words, "not genuinely seeking work," whether it is right or not.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether a person is or is not disqualified by a local committee for "not genuinely seeking work." I know hundreds of cases that have been disallowed by the local committees on that ground.

Sir A.STEEL-MAITLAND: What the hon. Member is doing is mixing up the reasons for disallowance which are to be judged by the insurance officer and the reasons for disallowance which, at the Minister's discretion, go before the local committees. if he has made a mistake in the presentation of his case, I shall not press the point. In order to create prejudice he alluded to an inquiry which he believed was going forward in Newcastle if not in Glasgow for increasing the number of weeks from 20 to 30 or more, as a method by which I was to pursue my nefarious object of cutting more people
off benefit. I have made inquiries since then, and I know of no inquiry having been held in Newcastle. I have not been able to find any evidence of such an inquiry, and as far as I can see it is a pure figment of the imagination.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I did not make any allegation. I was perfectly deliberate in what I said. I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether there was any truth in the statement on the subject.

Sir A.STEEL-MAITLAND: It was all put in as part of the alleged general charge of deliberately cutting people off benefit. I am glad to assure the hon. Member that the whole story of the inquiry at Newcastle, with whomsoever it originated, is a figment of someone's imagination, as far as I know. As regards managers of Employment Exchanges carrying out a new policy in not giving an opinion, I have to reply that there has been absolutely no change of any sort. The position is this. A committee may refer a case to the manager. If he is clear about it he will give an answer himself. If he is not clear about it because it is a difficult case, very likely he will refer it to the divisional authority for advice. That is done now in exactly the same way as before. Of course, if a case has been heard and is reheard by a different committee, and if one committee gives one decision and the second committee gives another decision, and you get two decisions which differ, naturally that, is a matter upon which the ordinary manager of an Exchange, like a decent and prudent administrator, is more ready to take advice from a superior official than he would be if there had not been that difference of opinion.
The hon. Member also suggested that in order to make the Fund actuarily sound we shut out humane motives. Let me say quite frankly that there is nothing whatever to justify any charge of that kind. Before making such a charge it would be wise for any hon. Member to look at the figures of the Fund. Just as the hon. Member has not found out what is the proportion of disallowances in Glasgow, so he has not found out what has been the case with the Insurance Fund. As a mater of fact, instead of disallowing people so as to get the Fund actuarily sound, we have recog-
nised the fact that because of the general strike the Fund must get further into debt, and as a matter of fact it has been getting into deficit at the rate of £26,000,000 a year. Far from it being kept actuarily sound in the way suggested, the debt has been added to and is being added to. Besides being told that of set policy I am. cutting off people and throwing them on the rates, it is said that I do not consider I have any responsibility for getting work for the men. I am probably more anxious than any Member of this House that unemployment should decrease. I recall the fact that before the general strike unemployment had been going down steadily, that by the end. of April last it had reached the lowest figure for five years, and that it then increased at once by 6O per cent.—by 600,000 people, because of the general strike—and then stayed at that. level throughout the dispute. I hope that the hon. Member will represent to his friends in Glasgow and elsewhere that, so far as there has been an excess of unemployment, all those, who are suffering from it can thank those who were responsible for the general strike.

ANGLO-AMERICAN RELATIONS.

Captain BENN: If I might turn the attention of the House for a moment from the subject of unemployment, I would like to raise the question of Anglo-American relations. We had a Debate recently about debt settlements, and although nothing, or very little, was said in that Debate to which exception could be taken, the Debate was accompanied outside, in the Press and elsewhere, by the sort of comments which, I think, had the most unfortunate result as touching the relations between ourselves and the United States. I will leave out of account the sort of vulgar talk that one finds in the "Daily Mail" of this country. I hope that in the United States they understand what value to attach to that kind of thing. But it was unfortunate that our own Chancellor of the Exchequer, in defiance of filial piety, was drawn into a controversy, first with Mr. Mellon, of the United States Treasury, and, secondly, into a rather undignified challenge to Senator Borah, on the subject of our financial relations with America. As far as many people are con-
cerned. and I hope I may say as far as the majority in this country are concerned, they do not want to see themselves put into the position of some of the European debtors of the United States.
When the present Prime Minister went to America to settle our debt, he did a thing which was characteristic of him. There was a debt, we had promised to pay the debt, and he arranged to pay the debt. It was not done because we wanted any favour in return, or because we wanted to attract American tourists or loans to this country. It was done because the spirit of this country found a very suitable mouthpiece in the Prime Minister, who in a straightforward and businesslike way said, "We owe the money; we are neither extravagant nor dishonest and we intend to pay." That attitude, I believe, commanded the respect and the assent of most people in this country. We got, of course, as every honest debtor gets, a material reward in the form of a very strong credit position and a stronger exchange and a higher commercial position in the world. But it was the sense of contract which made us want to settle, and the motive which actuated us did not go without recognition in America.' President Coolidge said, "This is an example of the highest
standard of international honour." It may be that in years to come it will be found impossible for the various countries to receive these vast sums which are owing to them. It may be economically impossible. But I do not believe that the mass of the people of this country ever wish to go to the United States and to ask to be let off. If greater forces intervene that is another matter.
The whole beneficent trend of economic forces was interrupted by the sort of comment to which I have referred, and to some extent by the tone of the Debate. I have here a quotation from the " Baltimore Sun," as quoted in the "Times." I think it worthily represents the opinion overseas.
America is increasingly conscious of the disparity between her wealth and Europe's distress. and the moral implication thereof. Europe would be wise not to divert that train of thought.
That is a very wise comment, and wise advice to us in discussing these matters. I the course of the last comparatively few years, many possible causes of mis-
understanding with the United States have been removed, in every case by the united action of all parties. There was, I believe, some misunderstanding of our relations with Japan when the Anglo-Japanese Alliance was in existence. That disappeared after the Washington Convention. The Irish question was undoubtedly a source of very grave misunderstanding between this country and the United States. The Irish question, which was settled by the Irish Treaty, was the act of all parties, because the party opposite is equally committed with the Home Rule party on this side to the Treaty of 1922. Then there was the liquor question. Whereas the negotiations touching the smuggling of liquor were initiated under the Conservative Government of 1923, I believe they actually came to fruition in the form of a Treaty under the Labour Government of 1924.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): indicated dissent.

Captain BENN: Whatever occasional supplementary questions may seem to suggest in this connection, I am certain that there is no body of opinion in this country which wishes the country directly or indirectly to be associated with the scandalous attempt on the part of certain traders to evade the laws of the United States. We often refer to the spirit of the Allies in the time of the War, and I think that that spirit was as strong, if not stronger, between ourselves and the American nation, as between ourselves and our European Allies. The United States intervened at a very critical moment in the War, and since the War she has spent liberally both in money and in effort, in assistance to European distress. Those who knew the European Capitals after the War could not be unconscious of the vast sums of money which the United States spent, by loan or by grant, in order to relieve distress. Then, again, at the Washington Convention, which was summoned by the United States, the solution of one of the most pressing problems of the world, that of disarmament, received an impetus. The whole of the settlement in the Ruhr, the solution of a very difficult and angry position, can be traced to a speech made by Mr. Secretary Hughes in 1922, on which the preliminary negotiations were
based, leading up to what is known as the Dawes scheme.
3.0 P.M.
Many people in this country desire to see this country and the United States marching step by step in the relief of the needs of the world. The United States has not been backwards in her willingness to assist. She has ratified the Convention relating to the World Court, she has indicated her intention either to summon a disarmament conference or to attend the Conference which will be held under the auspices of the League of Nations. Speaking for myself, I sympathise with the point of view of those American statesmen who, in their minds, associate the idea of debt with the idea of disarmament. When Mr. Coolidge and Mr. Hughes speak about their unwillingness that the financial resources of the United States should be put at the disposal of people who wish to spend the money on armaments, they are pursuing a policy which makes a great appeal to anyone who wishes to see the disarmament of Europe. Both in sea power and in credit, Great Britain and the United States are the two greatest powers in the world. I sincerely trust that their policies may always be framed in that spirit of friendship which will unite with a high ideal these two great nations in attempting to solve some of the difficulties which lie before,. a distressed world.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The House is indebted to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leith (Captain Benn) for raising this question, just as it was indebted to him for his speech a few days ago in which he opened up the much bigger question of Inter-Allied Debts generally. I only wish that his tone in that speech had been followed by subsequent speakers, as the newspapers across the Atlantic bear only too eloquent testimony to some of the sinister remarks made in that Debate which were taken without very much seriousness by this House, but were taken hold of by our ill-wishers, of which we have many, and magnified out of all importance. I think I was the first Member of this House to initiate a Debate in this House on the settlement made by the present Prime Minister with the United States, and I then said, and I say it now, and I am only reinforced in my view by subsequent events, that no other settlement could be made
and that it was a good settlement from the British point of view. It was worth doing by the lift and raising it gave to our national prestige alone and to our national credit. Without that settlement, we could not have got back to the gold standard. I prophesied then that the initiative for the alteration of our terms of repayment would come from America. I believe that in a measurable distance of time, when these debts begin to be paid by other countries to America, the demand will come from American business men and American working men for their cancellation. But when we in this House, or newspapers outside, begin whining or abusing our creditors, only ill can result. I consider that this is a matter that must be dealt with in a very serious way. I am not going over the ground covered by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith, but I do want to point out that so far the interest of our debt has been paid by rubber. Our dominating position in the world through rubber cannot last. Presently a great part of this debt will be paid in goods, and while it will create employment here, it will create unemployment in America, and we shall get the movement for reopening the discussions then from America that I have ventured to prophesy. If, however, we continue this campaign of complaint and recrimination, the reopening of the whole question must be delayed. Without any reference at all to America, I am always against other nations interfering in our affairs.
1 wish to refer to another matter of international importance. I wish to bring up the question which was raised at Question Time on Monday with regard to the sale of 100,000 army rifles and 100,000,000 rounds of 303 ammunition to Turkey. It is perfectly legal to make these sales; there is nothing in any international agreement or domestic law to prevent them, but they are unfortunate at the very time that the Mixed Commission on Armaments is pursuing its labours, and when we have our own experts at Geneva trying to come to arrangements with other countries for the limitation of armaments. At this time, of all times, for this great sale of rifles and ammunition to be, made to Turkey is most unfortunate, and I consider that the Govern-
Ment's veto on the export of arms should have been applied in this case. We are on friendly terms with Turkey. I do not know who Turkey is preparing to arm against, but it is not against us. The answer may be made, "Oh, yes; if British armament firms did not get the order, then other countries would." That same argument might be used against the suppression of the opium traffic or the traffic in drugs, or even against the white slave traffic. I look upon the traffic in arms as mischievous and immoral. The legal position, as we know, correct, but the moral position is, I am sure, opopsed to it. I consider it most unfortunate at this time that such a deal in arms should have been permitted.

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain): Since I came to the House to-day,I received notice from the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain benn) that he proposed to raise the subject which he had expressed his intention of raising in a Debate a couple of nights ago, but which was not then raised—namely, our relations with America. I have had no notice from the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) of his intention to raise the question of the sale of arms.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 1 apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for not having informed him personally, but I did two hours ago give notice of this to the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Still, I am sorry that I did not give the right hon. Gentleman notice personally.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): I do not recollect that the hon. and gallant Member said anything about the sale of arms. I thought he said that he was going to raise the general question of Anglo-American relations.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: No. Still, I am sorry that I did not give the right hon. Gentleman notice of it personally.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I accept the hon. and gallant Member's statement that he endeavoured to convey to me notice that he intended to raise this question. The notice of that only reached me by
his mouth as he made his speech, and in this case that is sufficient for my purpose. But I think that, above all things, in foreign affairs we should endeavour to preserve the old courtesies and practices of the House as much as possible, because there are obvious inconveniences in the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs dealing with matters of great delicacy without having proper notice.
As regards this question of the sale of arms to Turkey, I would remind the House that as far as my information goes, no such sale has taken place—that inquiries were made of a private firm in this country but that no business resulted. We are, therefore, not discussing a transaction which has taken place but a transaction which might have taken place or which may take place at some future time. It is necessary for anyone wishing to export arms from this country to obtain a licence from His Majesty's Government, and it is not the practice of His Majesty's Government to refuse that licence to British traders unless there is something in the circumstances which leads them to think that it is contrary to the public interest that a licence should be granted. There is nothing in our relations with Turkey which should prevent a British firm from doing what a merchant of any other country may do, or a British manufacturer from obtaining an order which, if we prevent it being placed here, would, in all probability—in fact if the Turkish Government were seriously set on buying arms would, undoubtedly—be placed elsewhere. I demur entirely to the argument of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Hull in the dogma which he laid down for our acceptance that whilst traffic in arms is permitted, we should deliberately and voluntarily of our own action prevent any British citizen from having any share in it. His comparison of this traffic with the white slave traffic I can only allude to for the sake of saying that it shows how far an orator in difficulties can travel for illustrations to support his case.
I think a question of greater interest and certainly of much greater importance was dealt with by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith and, in a few perfunctory phrases at the opening of his speech, by the hon. and gallant Member
for Central Hull. I was glad to notice that the hon. and gallant Member for Leith found nothing to take exception to in the very temperate and very courteous explanation which was offered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this House of the circumstances in which, and the purposes for which, the British Government borrowed from the United States Government after the entry of the United States into the War. As a statement was attributed, rightly or wrongly, to the Secretary of the American Treasury which wholly or largely misrepresented the character of our borrowings and the purposes to which they were applied, my right hon. Friend thought, and thought rightly, that it was not in the interest of good relations that such a misapprehension should prevail or should be given currency and credence because no notice was taken of it and he, accordingly, stated the facts correctly. But my right hon. Friend never complained and made it clear that he did not complain, of the terms of the settlement which we agreed with the United States. The hon. and gallant Member was right in saying that we borrowed money from the United States for the purposes of the War, in which they and we were engaged, and that we gave our promise to pay to the United States Government, and there is no man in this country, I am confident, who, if he had to decide the question, "Shall I honour the promise of my country when I am called upon to do so," would not have replied as my right hon. Friend and the Government of that day did, "Of course, Great Britain will honour its word and we will settle the debt as we promised," and as we have settled it. But you must not ask us—other people must not ask us—to say that we think that that was the best solution that might have been arrived at in the interests of the world at large.
We, on our part. are not only debtors to the United States but are large creditors to other Powers, and the sums owing to us far exceed the sums due from us, and we should have been prepared—succeeding Governments would have been prepared and gladly prepared —to wipe the slate clean of all these obligations among the Allied and Associated Powers, as being part of our contribution to the great cause in which we were all engaged. That solution did
not commend itself. We have since then adopted as our policy that, from our debtors, we will ask only so much as will meet the payments which we have to make ourselves. The actual sums which we are receiving, or which at any near date we may be likely to receive, will not amount to the sums which we have to pay, but, be that as it may, no British Government—and in saying this if I do not use the actual words I repeat the idea of the hon. and gallant Member —would think it becoming the dignity of this country or compatible with our honour to go cap in hand and whining to those to whom we have undertaken obligations to ask to be excused. We make no complaint. We will discharge our obligations but, at least, we would like it to be known, and known correctly, for what purposes and in what manner that money was borrowed and to what purposes and in what ways it was applied.
I do not know that I need add anything. No Government can be held fully responsible for the Press of the country which it represents. Least of all are we in this country in a position to control the comment which newspapers may make on ourselves or on other people. I join with the hon. and gallant Member in the expression of the hope that the friendship of our two great nations, our mutual respect and regard, may not be impaired by ill-tempered or injudicious public controversy whether by speeches or by writings. It is a tradition of this country, long honoured now, that we should preserve the most friendly relations with the United States. We have rejoiced in every sign we have seen of improved feeling in the United States towards this country and I agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the two measures he named have contributed to produce that feeling there. Long may it continue. May it grow warmer and closer, for in friendly union and co-operation we may achieve much, not only for ourselves, but for the peace and advantage of the world.

COAL TRADE DISPUTE.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: It is very tempting to follow the subject which has just been under discussion, but I do not rise at the present moment for that pur-
pose. Perhaps I may say one thing about it confining myself to two sentences. The first is this. We have made a bargain with America, and there is no Government that can be responsible for the administration of affairs in this country that will not carry out that bargain. There is no Government, moreover, that will seek of its own initiative to change the bargain in its own interests. I think nothing more need be said, as far as the Opposition is concerned, on that subject. The other is this: Considering the downward progress that has been observed in the settlement of debts due to us by other countries, I am encouraged to hope that, if the Government will begin to negotiate with Russia the question of her debts, and will just take a step as far down when they negotiate with Russia as they have taken in negotiating, say, with Italy, they will be in a position to meet the prejudices of the most. anti-British of the Russian statesmen.
But what I have risen to do is to put a question to the Government regarding the mining situation. We are going away to-day, and we are going to have a vacation of from three to four weeks. Now, those of us who have been striving since before the dispute broke out to get a reasonable settlement of the questions in dispute, although leaving this House, are not leaving the whole problem, and we shall propose to do everything we can to devise means which will settle the present troubles. We would like to know, however, what the Government are going to do in the meantime.I candidly confess, and I do it with a great deal of sorrow, that so far from the situation being nearer a settlement to-day than it was, say, a month ago, it is much further away from that settlement. The progress has been a retrogression. The Eight Hours Act, for which the Government are responsible, has made our difficulties very much greater than they were before. It has put obstacles in the way of peace, a peace of negotiation followed by a peace of agreement. The Government, as I understand it, made themselves responsible for that legislation because they thought it was going to ease the situation. They were told that if they gave the owners liberty to ask the miners to work for eight hours instead of for seven, the owners would be able to make such offers to the miners as would result
in a breakaway. There were certain districts—we all knew them; it is no secret—where it was believed that the coherence of the men was so weak and their association with the National Federation was so slender that those districts would, on their own initiative, return to work, demoralise the whole of the Federation, and so end the strike in chaos. That expectation has not been fulfilled. The Government have been let down.
Now the Government ought to face the facts. They have done this damage to industrial peace; what are they now going to do? The Churches—I use the short term; I need not go into a description of who they were, but representative Churchmen—approached the miners and made certain proposals, certain suggestions. The miners' executive accepted those suggestions, subject to their being endorsed by a national conference. The national conference endorsed those
sugestiOns and sent them back to the districts to be voted upon by the rank and file. That vote is now in process of being taken, and I am informed that all the prospects point to the Churches' suggestion being accepted by the body of the miners. That ballot will be declared within a week—on Saturday or Sunday of this week. If that ballot is in favour of those proposals, are the Government going to take any action to give the proposals a chance of being made the basis of negotiations? I would like to remind the Government of this: In those proposals is embodied a suggestion, which the miners would then have accepted. in favour of arbitration. Now, arbitration does not mean merely a settlement of this dispute. If that were all, the feeling is so bad, the friction is so great, that a mere settlement of this dispute would only mean a patched-up peace. If this dispute is settled by a surrender of the men or a surrender of the owners, if the dispute is settled without an agreement between the two sides, and an agreement which the two sides can really and conscientiously work, then, whatever the settlement is and whoever is beaten, it is only by way of truce. Do not make any mistake about that.
But here, in these suggestions, we have the proposal of arbitration. The value of arbitration is this, that the two sides may disagree, may fight, may con-
tend during the negotiations, and at the end of the negotiations may still be in opposition, but then they both agree that an independent Chairman shall give a decision. Now that decision will be accepted by both sides if they accept these proposals, and both sides beginning to work, if not exactly in complete agreement, nevertheless in good will, gives the country a prospect of a continued peace in the coalfield. What I want to say is this: we are going, as I say, to continue our work to try to bring things to a satisfactory termination, not by interfering with either side but by trying to get some accommodation which both sides can honourably accept. We cannot do it without the Government. Are the Government, then, going to take up this position, that after these weeks of fight they are out altogether? Are they simply going to leave it to the boards of guardians to hasten the termination through the operation of dire distress? Are they going to do nothing at all but allow owners and men to negotiate between themselves, in spite of the fact that the Government have declared to this House and to the country that, in their opinion, those conditions can give no settlement whatever? Is their position now that owners and men must be left to fight the matter out, that they have no responsibility, and that, having given the owners all they can, they are going to give no help further? Is that their position? Before we part, I think we ought to have a very definite statement upon these points, and I put these questions and make these observations in order that we may know exactly where we stand before we separate.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: In the previous Debates on this subject I have not intervened, because I recognise that it is a question for those Members who particularly represent the interests of the men as far as this House is concerned. But all of us have, of course, a special interest in this great crisis, and, undoubtedly, it is a very serious matter for the House to disperse and not to have an answer to such questions as those presented by the Leader of the Opposition as to the attitude of the Government, whether or not they are going to intervene in any way at all to bring about a settlement. Personally, I am very glad that the Church has been led to take a, stand in
the matter, and has put forward very reasonable proposals, which have been met most favourably by the men themselves. From personal knowledge of many men in the Scottish mining constituencies, I can say that large numbers of them are undoubtedly very earnest Christian men, and most anxious to consider the interests of the community as a whole. It so happens that, within the past hour, I have received a letter from one of the manufacturers in Dundee presenting this aspect of the question, and I think it is one which it will be well for the Government to have in view. The
firm is Sea Braes Mills, Ltd., and the director, Mr. Henry Denny, who, writing on the 3rd August, says:
SIR,
In view of the very depressed state of the staple trade, we take the liberty of approaching you on a matter which we think should require some consideration, namely, the difficult and costly coal supply.
It is with the greatest difficulty that we are able to carry on our works, and to do so we have to pay a very high price for poor foreign coal, and we are forced to consider whether it is worth while carrying on when we cannot recover the extra price of this coal. We are very reluctant to close down and inflict hardship on our workers, but we may be forced to take this step at any time.
The Government have given subsidies to mine owners and miners, but never to industrial consumers, who are also suffering. Our position is, that we consume 25 tons of coal per week, which usually costs us 15s. per ton; we have now to pay 40s. for similar coal, say 25s. more, or. say, £30 a week loss, which is irrecoverable. We contrast this expenditure with standing costs. and if they even approximately balance, we prefer to carry on. Now we employ 160 workpeople, who, if they were out of work and on the dole, would cost the Government, say, about 15s. each, or £120 per week.
If the Government, therefore, would subsidise us (and industry generally) to the extent of the extra cast of coal, in our case £30, we should be saving the Government £90 per week by carrying on, not to speak of all trades and tradesmen dependent on industry. Probably many have already answered the question by closing down, as we have recently been getting coals from second hands, works that have closed and selling their coal supplies at the high price.
The Government may refuse to grant any subsidies, yet the alternative may be an increase in unemployment and the consequent expenditure on the "dole.
We should be very glad if the Government could be made aware of this, and we should also esteem your own opinion.
This letter presents, not the direct mining industry aspect of the question, but that of the general industry of the country, and, coming from an industrial constituency such as I represent, it certainly becomes us to urge upon the Government the great responsibility which will rest upon them if they are retiring from the field. I, certainly, had no doubt myself, in the earlier stages of the crisis, that the Prime Minister might have brought things to a point, where, on the recommendation of the Commission, it was shown that very probably if the mineowners and the men were brought together, the men were prepared to consider even the question of a reduction of wages, if, on the other hand, the recommendations of the Commission concerning reconstruction were seriously taken in hand. And I know, when one Member on the opposite side asked my opinion on the whole question, I fixed on that point, and he quite agreed with me that that was a point on which there might have been an adjustment.
I think there was time lost by the Government in getting to grips with the question long before now. If we take the position which was adopted by the Government concerning the general strike, that it was an issue involving the whole country, I submit that the position now is for all practical purposes identically the same. The evidence I have quoted could undoubtedly he substantiated by other employers, not only in our own particular industry in Dundee, the jute industry, but in all industries in the country. It lies with the Government to intervene here, and meet the situation, to stop the drifting procedure which has been allowed to take place. It is not a question of leaving mineowners and men simply to come to grips, or one or the other to get the better of the situation, but the Government are expected to come in and deal with it from a national point of view. I submit, from that standpoint, that is the duty of the Government now, and I do hope they are not going to disregard the Church.
There are those who have had the audacity to say that the Church should mind its own business. If the Church has any particular business in operating at all, it certainly has to do with the fulfilment of God's purpose on earth as in heaven. Here is a question of a large
body of the human family being put under tremendous stress, and, as far as public opinion is concerned, I do not know of any previous struggle where public opinion has given more definite evidence of being with the men. They think the strength of the case is with the men. Public feeling is with the men, and I believe when we had that wonderful letter from the heir to the Throne it was not so much the amount of that contribution to the fund, which might have been more, I believe, owing to particular circumstances which intervened, I say it was the strength of the letter, which was to all intents and purposes a remarkably direct appeal from the heir to the Throne for the Government of the day to grapple with this question in the interests of the country at large.

The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane Fox): The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) will forgive me if I do not go into all the questions he has raised, although I congratulate him—no one can doubt that he sits for a Scottish constituency—on the proposal he brought forward for a subsidy for a particular industry in his constituency. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald) has asked me some definite though rather hypothetical questions. He has pointed out that what are known as the Bishops' proposals are now the subject of a discussion and a ballot in the mining areas, and he wants to know whether, if that ballot goes in favour of those proposals, the Government are going to take advantage of that chance and make those proposals the basis of future negotiations. The House knows that when what are known as the Bishops' proposals were brought before the Government there were certain fundamental objections to them, and those objections have not been varied by anything that has happened since. I want to be frank with the House, and I say quite clearly that since then nothing has happened to make those proposals more satisfactory than when they were pronounced upon by the Prime Minister a few days ago. I would also point out that even if those proposals, as they were put to us, had been satisfactory, they do not seem to me to be the proposals which are now being put before the men.
The other day I, in common with a great many other Members, received a copy of the Bishops' manifesto, and I find it clearly laid down in that that the period during which it was suggested the men should go back to work on the old terms and subject to a subsidy should be one not exceeding four months. When the Prime Minister objected to the period being as long as four months, the bishops pointed out that it was specially laid down that it was not to exceed four months and might be considerably less, but I find that Mr. Cook, at various meetings, has said, instead of a period not exceeding four months, "for a period of at least four months." That is one point. At the end of the bishops' proposals there comes this very vital passage:
 At the end of the defined period, if disagreements should still exist, a joint board, consisting of representatives of both parties, shall appoint an independent chairman, whose award in settlement of these disagreements shall be accepted by both parties.
Further on they say:
Attention may be specially directed to Clause VI, printed above, in which it is said that in the event of disagreement at the end of the period of negotiation any questions in dispute shall be referred to an independent chairman, whose award shall be accepted by both parties.
What do I find is being said in the coalfield? I see that Mr. Cook, speaking at
Seghill, Newburn-on-Tyne, said, as reported in the "Times" of 2nd August:
He had never stated anywhere that he was prepared to recommend the miners to accept a reduction of wages, or even to recommend negotiations to secure the best terms possible.
He went on to say:
If they could return to work on the conditions existing in April, while reorganisation proposals were carried out, and the State acquired the royalties, with the elimination of the middlemen, with the setting up of selling agencies and the municipal distribution of coal to enable the consumer to get fair play as well as the miners a living wage, this could be done within four months.
The House knows perfectly well that that is a fantastic statement. Then he goes on to say:
If we could get all this done in four months they were prepared to review the whole wages position—
There is no suggestion of accepting without qualification the award of any independent chairman. The words are,
"prepared to review the whole wages position," whatever that may mean.
Then he goes on:
believing honestly that when those reforms had been accomplished there would be no need to reduce the already low wages of the men in the mining industry.
I find that in another speech at Walbottle he said:
Neither Herbert Smith nor himself had ever recommended a reduction in wages, and it would be a very long time before they did.

Mr. MacDONALD: Does the Secretary for Mines allege that the decision of the executive regarding the bishops' terms is on those lines? Was it not in favour of the bishops' terms? Is the ballot a ballot on the bishops' terms or on anything else?

Colonel LANE FOX: I do not know what the ballot is on, but I do know the form in which this is being presented to the men, and the form in which it is being presented to them must influence the decision which they take. I say that, unsatisfactory though the terms were, it is still more difficult for them to be considered satisfactory when we realise that they are being presented to the men in a form different from that in which they were presented by the bishops.

Mr. R.RICHARDSON: I will give the terms exactly, in one minute. [Horn. MEMBERS: "Order!"]

Colonel LANE FOX: What I want to say is that the bishops have had the same experience, I am afraid, as the right hon. Gentleman and many others have had. They have heard that one thing has been said to-day, and another thing said another time.

Mr. HARTSHORN: Could the hon. Gentleman give an atom of evidence in support of that statement—any evidence at all? Why the right hon. Gentleman should be continually charging the miners with conduct of which they are not guilty I do not understand. Where is the evidence of that statement?

Colonel LANE FOX: The point I was making was that a great many hon. Gentleman, including, I think, the right hon. Gentleman himself, have done their utmost to interpret the statements of the miners' leaders in a sense favourable to
negotiation and to conciliation and to some settlement being made, and over and over again they have been disappointed. They have told us that statements have bean made that they have not been able to get the miners' leaders to repeat—

Mr. HARTSHORN: No.

Colonel LANE FOX: —and we find that Mr. Cook, immediately after the termination of the general strike, told the country that he had been bullied by the owners, had been bullied by the Government, but never had he been so much bullied as he had been by the Trade Union Congress. That shows that they were endeavouring, as the bishops have been endeavouring, to get him to take a reasonable point of view. They failed, and I am afraid, so far, the bishops have failed. Now the right bon. Gentleman asks me as to the outcome of the ballot. I can only say that if anything more favourable does come of it, the Government will most certainly miss no opportunity and will do their utmost to secure what the right hon. Gentleman himself said was essential—a genuine and complete settlement. As he said, anything else, anything in the nature of a make-believe, anything which is not a real settlement, can be nothing but a truce. It is perfectly true that if we are to embark on a peace which is not a real one, if we do not face the economic facts fairly and squarely, we shall not get a genuine settlement, and that is why the Government are not able to give any definite promise that unless some more satisfactory basis is provided they can act upon it. The time will be open and the opportunity may come, I hope soon. The right hon. Gentleman says that when we leave this House we are not leaving the coal trouble. I very much hope the right hon. Gentlemen opposite will do their utmost in the Recess to use their influence with the men and endeavour to persuade them to negotiate. There have been offers made to them on a seven-hours basis and on an eight-hours basis, and neither of these offers has been discussed at all, but they have been definitely turned down each time. it is perfectly clear that the miners' leaders want settlement, but they have not the courage to make their own proposals or to suggest one, but they
are merely waiting for the men to give a lead. The leaders are waiting for a lead instead of giving it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Right hon. Gentlemen opposite can be very valuable if they will go out and encourage the men and owners to meet in every sort of informal way and discuss the whole question and really give their leaders a lead. Then we shall be getting nearer a settlement.
The right hon. Gentleman said something about dire distress. I hope that no exaggerated statements will be made on that subject, because my information is—and I say this with all responsibility—from all parts of the country and from perfectly unprejudiced sources, that the alleged starvation about which we have heard so much in this House does not exist. There is no abnormal distress in any way at the present time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Go to the mining districts and see it!"] I have this information from all parts of the country. I can do better than go myself by getting information from people who live in the mining areas and who tell me the stories of starvation are exaggerated and that nothing of the sort is happening. I think it is high time that was said.
I do not want to say anything which would prevent a settlement, but I do urge the House to face realities. It is no use having any make-believe over this. We have got to face economic facts, and to get the owners and miners together and get them to negotiate, for unless they negotiate nobody else can do it for them. The Government will do everything they possibly can to make that easy and will take any opportunity that arises, either by mediation or otherwise, to facilitate negotiations, but they are not prepared to see peace where there is no peace. I do appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite to take their part, honestly and truly and to make use of this Recess and really do something practical to bring about a settlement.

Mr. MacDONALD: May I ask the Secretary for Mines, in view of the very serious statement he has made about the nature of the ballot, if he has seen the ballot paper, and, if he has seen it, how does he interpret the words of the ballot paper? The words are these:
 We are—
here there is a blank where the miner fills in the word "not" if he is not, and if he is in favour he fills in nothing—
 We are—in favour of the recommendation of the Miners' Federation Conference to adopt the Memorandum agreed upon between the representatives of the churches and the Federation Executive Committee. Signed.

Colonel LANE FOX: When I was asked, I said I did not know what were the terms of the ballot. What I said was, quoting from the reports of statements by prominent miners' leaders, that if the terms were being interpreted to the men like that, it was very natural that they might not understand their full meaning.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The speech just delivered by the Secretary for Mines leaves very little hope that any settlement of this devastating dispute is going to come from anything which the Government are likely to do. It is a very extraordinary speech he has made. Here are proposals, which are in substance proposals to carry out a unanimous Report arrived at by a Commission appointed by the Government, a Report which the Prime Minister three or four months ago expressed his readiness to carry out. The Secretary for Mines knows that there are consultations going on at the present moment among the miners as to whether their leaders should take part in negotiation upon these lines, and he tells the House he does not even know the terms of the reference made to the miners. I should like to know what his Department is doing. Surely they ought to give him information on a thing so vital as this. It is no use quoting speeches delivered by Mr. Cook. [HON. MEMBERS: " Why?"] I will say at once why. In the first place, Mr. Cook addresses huge gatherings, where there are excitable men I have no doubt, but, apart from that, Mr. Cook gets very compendious reports in all papers, but they are very short reports, and everyone knows who has been subjected to that, either from one paper or another, knows perfectly well it conveys a very wrong impression of what you intend to say. The sentences that are good copy are not always sentences which convey your sense or meaning—quite the reverse They are just sentences which are thrown out in order to keep things going during the three-quarters of an hour or the
hour during which you are delivering a speech and keeping the audience together. If you begin to pick and choose the things which make good copy, you do not really get the gist of what is meant. I have no doubt at all that, if Mr. Cook's speeches were reported verbatim, there would be a very different impression of what he says. The newspapers, or some of them, are not on the look-out for that. They are on the lookout for material which helps the particular view which they take of Mr. Cook and his agitation.
It is not a matter of what is said at these meetings. What matters is the document which Mr. Cook has himself signed. He has signed this document. His own signature is attached to it, and that of the president of the federation also. What is more, Mr. Cook—and I am not an apologist for Mr. Cook, and I do not know how many Members there are above the Gangway who would always like to defend. everything he says—at any rate did face a meeting of miners' representatives and obviously there was a minority who were prepared to charge him with abandoning the position which he had taken up, that the terms of the Churches, which means the terms of the Commission, be accepted. That was a very big thing to do at a great conference of that kind. What has happened since? By a majority of about four to three they carry those terms, and they are referred to the mining districts—as the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said—in writing, and the mining districts will be voting to-morrow, not on speeches reported in the "Times" or the "Daily Mail" by Mr. Cook but on the actual terms which are submitted to them. The miners are very intelligent in these things, and it is not giving very much credit to their intelligence to assume that they do not know exactly what they are voting on. They do. I have had a good deal of experience with them, and everyone knows they either vote for or against, and whenever they vote for they stand by that in the letter and the spirit. I have never seen a case where the miners have not given an honourable interpretation to every engagement they have ever entered into. That is the experience of everybody who
has done any business with them in the course of the last 20 or 30 years, and I am sure before that.
4.0 P.M.
I ask the Government whether really this is the last word they have to say to the country before the House of Commons adjourns? If so, it is a very serious position. The other day, there was a deputation received by the Minister from the Federation of British Industries, and I rather detected a sort of reflection of the observations of that deputation in the speech of the Minister of Mines. Practically, the right hon. Gentleman has said to us, " You must face economic facts, and the Government must not interfere too much; you have to consider what the economic realities are," and all that seems to have been taken bodily from the document presented to the Government by the Federation of British Industries. Amongst other things stated by that deputation was the statement of a gentleman from Lancashire, who said that un employment was worse there than it had ever been since the great cotton famine of 1864. On the same occasion an engineering representative said that if this dispute went on there would be a setback from which they could not recover, because British trade was being captured.
I notice that some hon. Members laughed at the statement made by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) in a significant sentence in which he said that the foreigners were sending us their worst refuse as coal, which means that they do not think it worth their while to capture our markets, but they are sending their best coal to where we were sending coal before, and they are capturing our markets in that way. In Lancashire we hear of business being taken away in regard to engineering, and we are getting worse from week to week and month to month. Every week we note a worse condition of things than the last, and all the Secretary for Mines says is: " We really do not know what question has been referred to the miners and that is not our business." They do not trouble to inquire what question has been put to the miners, and that is not the way to deal with a vital matter of this kind. One moment the Government say they will accept the Report and put it into operation, and another time they say they will not put it into
operation. The Prime Minister says he is willing to do a thing one day, but the next day someone evidently has got at him and he says he must not do it. The Government are wobbling from one side to the other. You cannot punt through the rapids with a withy bending in every way and doubling up at the first pebble, or any other obstacle you may come up against. There is no firmness or direction in the thing.
I would like to know if the right hon. Gentleman has formed any estimate as to when he thinks this thing will come to an end or how it is to come to an end? The Federation of British Industries have been stiffening the back of the Government and saying they must not give in, which means that you are practically going to starve the miners into submission in order to impose what they call economic terms upon the industry. There is no economy in forcing people to accept terms which the Government know in their hearts to be an outrage upon fair play. You do not help the industries of this country by that means. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to some of those terms and he says to some of them we object. The miners are asking for the right to negotiate on that basis. They are not firing an ultimatum and saying, "Take these points or leave them." They are not presented like the six articles of Henry the Eighth with the threat that if you do not swallow them you will be punished as a heretic. That is not the line that Mr. Cook is taking with regard to the Government.
Why are the Government refusing terms for negotiation? What is it that they object to? On which of these terms do they say they will not negotiate? Can they name one of these terms to which they object and which they say cannot be negotiated upon? Is it the purchase of royalties? Is that what stands in the way? The right hon. Gentleman quoted a passage from Mr. Cook in which he gave a list of the things which they mean to demand. I noticed that, because I had read that very carefully before. He simply gave there a summary of the recommendations of the Royal Commission, and the right hon. Gentleman treats that as some sort of monstrous proposition which Mr. Cook has put for the first time before public opinion in this country and before the miners. They are
the very things which the Prime Minister, standing at that Table, was himself prepared to accept within the last few weeks; but, when it comes from the lips of Mr. Cook, it is revolutionary, it is Bolshevik, it is something which is going to destroy the economic foundations of this industry and of the whole business of the country. The Government that approaches the settlement of a question in that spirit is a hopeless Government. It is a fatuous thing to try and settle upon those lines.
Is it subsidy? If it is subsidy, why, the Government themselves have said that they are prepared to give —3,000,000. They have never withdrawn that in this House. [HON.MEMBERS: Yes! "] I beg pardon. The Prime Minister, it is perfectly true, said he could not hold that offer open for ever, but three months is not for ever, nor is even 14 weeks. He has not definitely withdrawn it, except to the Federation of British Industries. The Federation of British Industries is not the British Parliament yet. It was suggested the other day—I have not seen the actual form in which the appeal was made—that the period of four months might possibly be reduced. If it is two months, the —3,000,000 would probably more than cover it, having regard to the fact that during the first month the prices will be so high that no subsidy will be required at all, and, even if the —3,000,000 did not cover it, it would not be too much to ask the owners to make up the gap it at the end of that time they got a fair settlement.
Why should it be assumed that,, if the Bishops' terms a re accepted, it will be an uneconomic settlement? The settlement would be a settlement effected by a joint committee of owners and men with an independent chairman. Why should it be assumed that an independent chairman will decide to give terms with regard to wages which will be so uneconomic that they will destroy the whole industry? I am deeply sorry that the Government have taken this line. We are separating for a month—I am assuming that, if the stoppage is not over, we shall be back at the end of August. [interruption.] I am assuming, Mr. Speaker, that we shall be in a position to discuss the whole situation —that, if we are called back in about a month's time to discuss renewing the
Emergency Regulations, it will be competent to discuss the whole position in the mine field. I am assuming that because I think there have been discussions which have gone beyond the mere terms of the Regulations, and I assume that the general sense of the House will be such that you, Sir, would interpret it in such a way as to give us full facilities, and that, anyhow, the Prime Minister would not refuse to set up a Motion, if necessary, to give us an opportunity of discussing the situation at that time. I am assuming that at any rate in a month's time we shall be in a position to do so, but what will happen in the meantime?
The right hon. Gentleman talked about public opinion. Does he realise that as far as public opinion is concerned, the intervention of the Bishops has altered the whole position? What was the position before? Undoubtedly Mr. Cook's slogan was a very unfortunate one from the point of view of public opinion. I am talking about public opinion outside the mining fields. I am not expressing any opinion with regard to the effect upon the miners, but so far as public opinion outside is concerned, it was having a very disastrous effect when he said, " Not a minute on the day, not a penny off the pay." He seemed to be closing the door against every form of negotiation. I think that was having a very bad effect from the point of view of sympathy with the miners' case as far as the general public were concerned. I have pointed out repeatedly that I do not think Mr. Herbert Smith has ever said it. On the contrary, he has rather indicated that he is quite willing to discuss a reduction of wages. If after reconstruction it leads direct to reduction, he will accept the logical conclusion. He has said so over and over again. But still Mr. Cook, for various reasons, attracted more limelight than Mr. Herbert Smith did, and naturally, because he has greater gifts of that kind. [Interruption.] He has not, and part of our trouble in the South Wales coalfields is that we are run by men who come from outside. As long as we were run by our own people I rather think on the whole it was better. That has been abandoned. What has been the result? I have read articles in the Conservative papers with huge headlines,
"Mr. Cook running away," "Mr. Cook surrenders," "Mr. Cook gives up." If he gives up, why does not the Government go in? You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say Mr. Cook is fighting for something that is impossible, and the next moment say he is running away from the thing he has done.
The fact remains that Mr. Cook and Mr. Herbert Smith, on the documents which they themselves have signed, have gone to the country with proposals which embody not merely what the Churches have recommended but what the Commissioners recommended, and public opinion will judge the dispute in future upon that basis and not upon the basis of the slogan. What position will the Government be in? [An HON. MEMBER: " A rotten one!"] They are in a pretty rotten one now. They will be in this position. They will be carrying on, or permitting to be carrying on—because it could not be carried on a day if they intervened firmly—a struggle which is devastating British industry and which will inflict a damage upon it that is incalculable. It is not merely what you reckon up in the millions that have been lost. It is in the trade that you are driving away. They are going to allow that to be carried on day by day, inspite of the fact that the mining leaders have accepted these proposals, because they are afraid of facing the Federation of British Industries and a few people who are pulling them from behind. I remember a strike in the Welsh Valley shortly after I came into this House. There was Mr. Ritchie who was President of the Board of Trade. He was a very sensible man and he did his best to settle. He intervened to secure arbitration. What happened? The diehards on the benches opposite intervened. I heard one of them get up and denounce him, amidst the cheers of the whole Conservative party, because he had attempted conciliation. He had to give it up. He could bring no further pressure to bear upon the owners. What was the result? The dispute went on until the valley was desolate. The young men went away, the old men, most of them, died during the years that the dispute went on, and the slate industry received a blow from which it has never recovered. We have now a reproduction
on a larger scale of the same thing which happened in connection with the great Penrhyn quarry dispute.
The Prime Minister started reasonable, sane and, I think, wise. He showed the larger wisdom. He said, " Here you are. There are some of these terms that I do not care for. They are not quite the things that I would like, such as royalties and selling agencies, but for the sake of peace I am prepared to use the whole of my influence, and I have carried my Cabinet so far with me, to put these terms into operation." Then came the same process that I saw in connection with the Penrhyn quarry dispute. The diehard sentiment arose. They said, " What! Are you going to nationalise royalties? Are you going to give power to the municipalities to sell coal in certain cases? Are you going to give practically a subsidy?" One after another they pressed upon the right hon. Gentleman, and the result is that he has had to give way. I believe that if he had stood up to them he would have carried the bulk of his own supporters and he certainly would have carried the whole country with him. He would have put himself into a bigger position than he has ever achieved. He would have made peace in this country, and he would have made it in a sense which would have been an interpretation of the national conscience.
I ask the Government whether this is really the last word which they have to offer. During the month of August, with British trade under this juggernaut, we are pretending to make holiday, with the bank balances going up against the great industrial concerns of this country, with unemployment increasing, with Lancashire in a worse position than it has been in, according to the gentleman who spoke at the deputation, since the great cotton famine. Let the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Mines ask his colleagues to face the situation, to interpret the feeling of the nation, to show courage. They are here representing the people. Let them act worthily of their position.

Mr. HOPKINSON: There are one or two points which I wish to make. The Leader of the Opposition produced what he called a ballot paper. I think the wording of that paper shows quite conclusively that it is nothing of the sort. It is not a ballot paper. It is simply a
form of resolution to be submitted to a miners' meeting for a show of hands. When the right hon. Gentleman described it as a ballot paper he was misdescribing it entirely.

Mr. RICHARDSON: It will decide it.

Mr. HOPKINSON: Does the hon. Member say it is a ballot paper?

Mr. RICHARDSON: It is a ballot paper to the lodge as a whole, and it will decide the poll.

Mr. HOPKINSON: "A ballot paper to the lodge as a whole." A ballot paper which begins: "We, so-and-so, decide so-and-so," is not a ballot paper in any sense in which a ballot paper has been interpreted before. It is simply a form of resolution to be submitted to a lodge meeting for a show of hands, and nothing else.

Mr. SEXTON: Will not the hon. Member come down from his attempts at logic chopping, and get down to bare facts?

Mr. HOPKINSON: That is exactly what the Government is, at last, doing. If the Government had given up logic chopping and got down to bare facts three months ago, the industries of this country, and especially the mining industry, would have been in a better condition. Now that they have come down to facts the Opposition is blaming them. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), whenever he speaks on the coal industry, seems to forget that he himself ever had anything to do with the undertaking. It is no exaggeration to put forward this point, that the accumulative effect of the actions of the right hon. Gentleman himself year after year in relation to the coal industry is largely responsible for the condition of the industry today. Anyone would think, from the fact that at this time last year he was attacking the Government for paying blackmail in the form of a subsidy to the mining industry, that he himself had never paid a subsidy to the industry. As a matter of fact, the subsidy which was paid by the right hon. Gentleman was much bigger than the unfortunate subsidy given by the present Government during those nine months. It was very much larger.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not know what the hon. Member means by that. The subsidy given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hilhead (Sir R. Horne) and myself in 1921, was, I think, about £7,500,000. The Government subsidy last year was about £24,000,000.

Mr. HOPKINSON: I was referring, not only to the blackmail paid to the mining industry by the right hon. Gentleman in 1921, which amounted to £7,500,000, but to the expenditure of this country under the Coal Control Commission, which went on month after month, and which was so vast that even the right hon. Gentleman himself said that it was much better to go on paying a subsidy.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think the hon. Member had better know some of the elementary facts of the case. As a matter of fact I was not responsible for the Coal Control Commission. That is his first mistake. It happened before I became Prime Minister. The second mistake is that the Coal Control Commission instead of being expensive to the country made huge profits.

Mr. HOPKINSON: There was a gigantic loss made in 1920 and 1921. The profit was made at the time when coal prices were very high, a year or two before. The losses on the coal trade were perfectly gigantic, and it was this reason alone that decided the right hon. Gentleman himself that at any cost he would fight against going on paying this gigantic tribute to the coal industry after March, 1921. He also informed us that Mr. Herbert Smith had long been ready to negotiate on the question of wages. I do not know whether he is better informed on this subject than Mr. Cook, but Mr. Cook, speaking at Wallbottle on Monday last, said that neither Mr. Herbert Smith nor himself had ever recommended a reduction in wages. I have taken the trouble of reading what is practically a verbatim report of Mr. Cook's speech at Wallbottle, as reported in the " Manchester Guardians," a paper which the right hon. Gentleman will agree can be trusted in every respect. The " Manchester Guardian's " report of this speech gives Mr. Cook as saying:
 He was determined first and foremost that they would not negotiate on the question of hours. They would never submit
to an agreement for longer hours. They were determined to stand for a national agreement, with a national minimum of a seven hours day.
For the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs to get up and pretend to this House that arbitration is possible under these conditions is simply playing with the House. He knows quite well that without arbitration on hours and wages it is simply nonsense and nothing else. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs repeated the Prime Minister's statement that he was prepared on behalf of the Government to carry out all the proposals of the Royal Commission's Report, including those which called for various forms of legislation, on one condition, and that was that the other parties to the dispute would also agree to accept the terms of the Report. One of the parties did, but one of the parties did not, and therefore the Prime Minister, I think to his great relief, was released from that promise, which he had made merely with a view to getting peace.
I think it would be well for hon. Members who have been present this afternoon to be disabused of some of the impressions which the Leader of the Opposition endeavoured to instil into their minds. He said, in effect, that " the situation is worse now than it has even been." I can only say, in reply, that we are 24 hours nearer a settlement now than we were this time yesterday, and that, to-morrow, at this time, we shall be 24 hours nearer a settlement still. I ask hon. Members to examine very carefully the speeches and the actions of Mr. Cook and his colleagues of the Miners' Federation Executive. If they examine the reports as carefully as I have done during the past few weeks, they will agree that there is some reason for optimism at the present time. It is perfectly clear, from the somewhat disjointed orations of Mr. Cook up and down the country, that although the leader of the Opposition thinks that the whole position is perfectly secure, and that the miners are as determined as ever they were, Mr. A.J. Cook thinks nothing of the sort. The attempts which have been made to prevent men working in Warwickshire have not been successful on the whole. They have succeeded to a certain extent, but a good
Many men, valuing the interests of their wives and children more than the saving of the faces of Mr. Cook and Mr. Smith, have gone back to work in increasing numbers during the present week. There are other places where the same thing is taking place. There is another point that hon. Members should bear well in mind during the Recess. It is again and again alleged that if the men are obliged to accept, as they have to accept in the long run, certain conditions which are not as favourable as the conditions prevailing to-day—

Mr. HADEN GUEST: You mean that you propose to starve them, that is all.

HON.MEMBERS: The brute!

Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot allow these interruptions. I hope that the hon. Member for North Southwark (Mr. H. Guest) will set a better example.

Mr. GUEST: May I not explain?

Mr. SPEAKER: No; I will not allow these interruptions

Mr. HOPKINSON: I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will allow interruptors as much latitude as possible. It is a latitude which I very much appreciate.

Mr. SPEAKER: I certainly do not intend to allow either one side or the other to set an example which should not be followed.

Mr. HOPKINSON: I think hon. Members who are not intimately acquainted with the mining districts and who do not live in mining districts should bear in mind that of all the men working in this country, there is less malice to be found among the workers in coal mining districts than any others. I have lived among miners, I have worked with miners for many years, and I have fought with miners; and I can say that there is very very little malice among the mining population of this country. Disputes in the past have sometimes been successfully fought and the men have never shown any tendency to take advantage of their success. I have never observed in my experience—and hon. Members representing mining constituencies can say the same—that miners take a beating badly or grumble and kick up a fuss because they are beaten. In the present
instance, the miners of Great Britain have put up a magnificent fight. I know it is perfectly well understood that they were deceived from the start. When people have put up a great fight—and, what must be a great satisfaction in this case, have broken a record for the duration of a strike—they go back to work in a frame of mind that is very different from that described by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald) and his followers. They go back thinking that they have put up a good show and that economic facts have been too strong for them and that they will put up a better show next time.

Mr. HUGH EDWARDS: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member who has just spoken with a very cynical speech, which I think will do more harm than good. I am one of those who are very disappointed that the Secretary for Mines has not given a sympathetic reply. I think that those who are associated with him would readily agree that it would be a national disaster if this struggle is fought to a finish. The hon. Member who has just spoken seemed to have an idea that it must be fought to a finish. It will be a great mistake if the miners are reduced to submission by a process of exhaustion. They would go back into the mines not as he thought, feeling elated that they had put up a good fight, but feeling extremely sullen, bitter in feeling, and ready for an opportunity to have another struggle. It would be a, truce, but an extremely bad truce. The Secretary for Mines took exception to the manifesto issued by the leaders of the Churches, but there is one paragraph in that manifesto which I venture to think will appeal to all Members of this House. It reads:
 No lasting peace is possible in the coal industry except upon the basis of justice and co-operation expressed in such practical methods of organisation as may secure that the worker in return for efficient service may receive adequate remuneration and enjoy humane conditions of labour.
However much we may differ on political questions, I think everyone, even the Secretary for Mines, would be prepared to agree with that statement. It will be very hard when we go back to our constituencies and are asked what has been done by Parliament to bring the struggle to a close, if we cannot give a satisfactory answer. If we confess
we are allowing the two sides to fight it out, it will be a lamentable answer to the country. I would make a suggestion to the Secretary for Mines. I would ask him to think of the mining industry and the miners, and not of Mr. Cook. The danger in this struggle is that people seem to think—as I fear the Secretary for Mines thinks — that Mr. Cook is the miner writ large. There are thousands of men in the mines who are moderate men, eager to work, and whom Mr. Cook does not represent. It is a mistake to put him up as the type of miner. He is being paid court to which he is not entitled. I would recall to the House a remark by Lord Askwith who was a permanent official of the Board of Trade when my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was President of the Board of Trade, and who, along with my right hon. Friend, took a leading part in settling industrial disputes. It was admitted in those days by employers and employés alike that there was no fairer-minded man or more skilful negotiator than Mr. Askwith, as he was at that time. I have heard him say that the first condition in an industrial dispute was to get the two sides together and keep them talking. I think that was the policy of my right hon. Friend himself. He always had the two sides talking, and did not talk himself while they were talking. Let the Secretary for Mines get the two sides together, let them begin to talk, and talk all through August, if necessary. I hope he will not allow a hard attitude on either side to determine his own attitude. Let him convene the parties round a table and get agreement, if possible, on minor points. If he does so, he will create a favourable atmosphere, and, in that way, he may induce the frame of mind which will lead to a settlement.
The House will scarcely need to be reminded that this is the anniversary of a historic day in the annals of our country. It is the twelfth anniversary of the Declaration of War. We cannot forget that the miners of the country were then among the most patriotic of the community. There were miners' battalions in the British Army, and thousands of miners laid down their lives, and are sleeping their last sleep in Flanders and in France. I ask that the
memories of those men and the service which they rendered to their country in the day of crisis shall not be forgotten. Do not let us regard the miners as industrial pariahs, who were not prepared to do their part. If we can only get the spirit which prevailed in those days, and the appreciation of their services and patriotism which was then felt, to be a factor in the present situation, I feel sure much can be done. If the Secretary for Mines can only catch that spirit, and bring coalowners and miners together in that spirit, it will not be long before he achieves that great end which I give him credit for having in view—not a mere truce, but a satisfactory and permanent settlement in this industry.

Sir A.STEEL-MAITLAND: I have only one or two remarks to make to correct, perhaps, some misapprehensions in the speech of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). He referred to the question of a subsidy. It is, of course, not the first time that he has referred to the question of a subsidy, but it was interesting to hear him this afternoon commending a subsidy to the Government in language as strong as that which he used just about a year ago, when he said that, if they gave a subsidy, it was because they were afraid of cold steel.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that I said that once you gave it you could not get out of it until you had accomplished a settlement. I warned them at the time, and I am still of the same opinion, that once you have given a subsidy you cannot get out of it until you have cleaned up the job.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The right hon. Gentleman's speech this afternoon has been peculiarly unhelpful in helping us to clean up the job. In the first place, he spoke of the proposals of the Bishops, without discussing them, as being based upon the Report of the Royal Commission. One thing he will find, if he has read the Report of the Royal Commission—

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Several times.

Sir A. STEEL-MA1TLAND: From beginning to end, the whole of it?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes.

Sir A.STEEL-MA1TLAND: I am interested to hear that. If so, it is strange that he should think that the recommendation of a subsidy for a period of four months is in harmony at all with the Report of the Commission.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Sir Herbert Samuel recommended a subsidy. The Commission changed their minds.

Sir A.STEEL-MAITLAND: The hon. Member is interrupting in the middle of a speech with a point that is not material in the least. Sir Herbert Samuel, as he said himself, spoke for himself alone, He did not speak for the Commission.

HON. MEMBERS: He did.

Sir A.STEEL-MAITLAND: He never said he spoke for the Commission. He spoke personally, and he did not say that the Commission recommended it. On the contrary, he made a personal suggestion, which was at variance with his own Report, and there is no question whatever that, so far as the Report of the Commission was concerned, the subsidy was condemned. At the beginning of the negotiations, the Prime Minister offered a sum of £3,000,000 as what is called a temporary subsidy. He excused it at the time as being a deviation from the Report of the Commission, and when the right hon. Gentleman opposite said that the present proposal of a subsidy for four months really did not differ from what the Prime Minister himself had said, and that he had never retracted it, either his memory or his industry must be grossly at fault with regard to what has happened in the House of Commons itself. If not, he would have realised that later on the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in an answer to a question in this House, on behalf of the Prime Minister, said that, in the first place, the Government had recovered their freedom with regard to it, and not only so, but what was still available of the £3,000,000, after all the extra expenditure that had been caused by the strike, which the first offer was fruitless to prevent, would probably be needed for other purposes connected with the industry, for persons permanently out of work, and not for a subsidy of wages.
Now, as regards the question of whether the Bishops' proposals have been placed before the miners exactly as they were made. Here are the Bishops' proposals, and here is what is obviously not a ballot paper. I have been making inquiries with regard to what is going on, and I hope to continue to get information, as soon as ever it is available, from the coalfields, to see the decision that is being taken, but the decision that is being taken is not a decision upon a
ballot. It is a decision upon a number of resolutions submitted to the miners' lodges, and, as every mining Member knows, that is not a ballot. It is a very different thing. The Leader of the Opposition referred to it as a ballot, and the right hon. Member for Carnarvon, Boroughs referred to it as a ballot.

Mr. R.RICHARDSON: The question is submitted to the various lodges in the country, and a vote on that matter, as outlined on the paper, will settle the whole principle. The delegate will be instructed to attend his council meeting, and to give his vote according to that.

Sir A.STEEL-MAITLAND: That may be all very true, and I am not quarrelling with it, but when my right hon. Friend here is taken to task for not knowing exactly what is happening in the coalfields, and the Leader of the Opposition says, " Does he not know the ballot paper which is being submitted to the miners? " I would point out that a resolution submitted to lodges to vote upon is an entirely different thing. But a more important point is as to the way in which the proposals of the Bishops are really being submitted to the miners. It is no use pretending, as the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs pretends, that you cannot gather anything from the reported speeches of Mr. Cook, that his phrases are picked out, and that, therefore, you are to place no importance upon them.
That is manifestly absurd. I quite agree that condensed newspaper reports have to be taken into account, but when it is said that these are merely flowery phrases used to deck out a speech, and consume some part of three-quarters of an hour, I answer that it is something quite different. They are phrases which are interpreted by the audience at a meeting and the miners at large—

Mr. MARDY JONES: Is it in Order for any Member to speak twice on the Motion for the Adjournment? The Minister has spoken before to-day, and there are others who are desirous of getting in.

Mr. SPEAKER: He can only speak by leave of the House.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am grateful to the 'House for having given me permission to speak again. As the hon. Member knows, I have given way to every legitimate interruption.

Mr. G. HALL: A good deal has been said about a ballot, and the way the-terms are to be submitted to lodge meetings. If the terms are approved by the miners throughout the country, either by ballot or at the lodge meetings, will the 'Government themselves open up negotiations!

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am coming to that before I sit down. The point I am putting to the House is this, though there may be some wild phrases —condensed versions of speeches—which are seized upon, there are other phrases of Mr. Cook's which interpret or profess to interpret, the memorandum of the Bishops. The phrases actually used go far beyond the actual proposals of the Bishops themselves. I take one point which is very essential indeed. Take the Bishops' proposals. In the first one they
say:
 The Settlement, when arrived at, shall be on the basis of a National Agreement.
When I read Mr. Cook s interpretation, I find it includes a national minimum. Now a national agreement and a national minimum are two entirely different things. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. He cannot remember what the Coal Commission say. If he will refer to pages 140 to 150 of their Report, he will find that what they really suggest in all those pages, taken together, is that there shall be a national form of agreement—that there shall not necessarily be a, national minimum, but there shall be an adjustment according to districts. The consequence is that while it may be argued that the national agreement in the Bishops' proposals is in harmony with the Report, a national minimum is distinctly not in harmony with the Report and Mr. Cook in that respect has entirely perverted the proposals of the Bishops in his speeches.
The other point which I want to make is this. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs referred to this as a basis for negotiation, and asked what would happen if the lodges accepted the proposals put before them. What I can say at once is this: If there is any readiness to negotiate generally, the Government are only waiting an opportunity to try and bring the parties together when there is any real likelihood that bringing them together will lead to any useful or fruitful result. Up to now, the difficulty has been to bring the parties together. We have tried on more than one occasion.

Mr. G.HALL: Will you do it?

Mr. R. RICHARD SON: Have you tried the owners?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: We have tried the owners.

Mr. RICHARDSON: What do they say?

Mr. SPEAKER: How can a reply be made while hon. Members keep interrupting?

Sir A.STEEL-MAITLAND: The only reason I can see for the interruptions is that hon. Members opposite do not want to have a reply.

Mr. M.JONES: The right hon. Gentleman is speaking at five minutes to five, while the country is waiting for a reply. It is starving the miners into subjection.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is himself taking away from his own time.

Sir A. STEEL - MAITLAND: Statements have been made as to the starvation of miners into subjection, which have flatly been contradicted. If hon. Members use that language, then they must be prepared to hear it contradicted, and more than once. I am not prepared to allow statements of that kind to be made, and to allow them, whether there is time or not for other Members to speak, to pass without contradiction. As often as they are made, so often will they be contradicted. There is no starvation of the miners at the moment, and the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. Mardy Jones) knows it perfectly well.

Mr. MARDY JONES: There is.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The hon. Member knows it perfectly well, and if he makes the statement it is merely for stage purposes.

Mr. JONES: I object to the Minister speaking any further, in view of the fact that there are so many other Members who are anxious to speak.

Mr. SPEAKER: Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland.

Captain BENN: On a point of Order. Do we understand that the right hon. Gentleman can continue to occupy the rest of the time when he has already spoken once, if objection be taken?

Mr. SPEAKER: I put the question whether any objection was taken, and said the right hon. Gentleman must ask leave, and he received leave.

Sir A.STEEL-MAITLAND: In reply to a question from another hon. Member, which is much more apposite—as soon as ever there is a possibility of getting a useful result by bringing the two sides together, it is perfectly obvious that the Government will take that step at once. We have tried already to do so, and we are willing to do so again. What we really want is a fair settlement, and a fair settlement has got to he not merely what is demanded by one, side or the other, but a settlement which really is in harmony with the actual needs of the industry. You cannot neglect them. On the other hand, we must try to see that it is not unfair and not beyond what the needs of the industry really requires. As soon as there is a possibility that the results will be fruitful, we are willing, anxious and ready to take the opportunity. We have got to use our own judgment as to the moment. We have tried already and the moment was not ripe and we were not successful.

Mr. G.HALL: May I ask this question: whether, in the event of the lodges approving the recommendations of the executive committee of the Miners' Federation on Saturday, does the right hon. Gentleman think it would then be necessary and opportune for negotiations to be opened?

Sir A.STEEL-MAITLAND: I would never take a purely hypothetical case with regard to that. [Interruption.] If there be anyone who is versed in negotiations, he will realise that I am right in saying that, whether it be a ballot or reference to the lodges, or whatever you like, when you get one being taken, as at this moment, I am not going to announce any intention on behalf of the Government while the reference is actually, proceeding. It would be perfectly absurd to do so. [An HON. MEMBER: " Is it respectful to treat Members of this House with the contempt which the Minister is treating them? ") Hon. Members know quite well I am not treating them with contempt at all_ It would be wrong to answer hypothetically in the middle of a reference, but I assure hon. Members that, given the opportunity, the Government would have no hesitation whatever in trying to bring the parties together. That I can assure the House, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman opposite that, if he is for fishing in troubled waters, that does not help to a settlement.

Mr. JONES: I want to say very frankly that it is quite obvious that the Government have only one policy, and that is to help the mineowners and starve the miners into subjection.

Mr. SHORT: We have listened to a very extraordinary explanation from the right hon. Gentleman. I venture to submit his reply has been harsh and vicious, and he has proved conclusively to my mind, and I believe to that of the country, that he has been echoing the sentiments of the Federation of British Industries. It is the intention of the Government to see the miners driven back to their work and follow their daily occupation as the result of starvation. He denied certain statements that had been made, but all the facts and all the arguments which he advanced—

It being Five of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of 3rd August, until Tuesday, 9th November, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of this day.